Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER, ETC.) BILL

"to provide for the vesting in the County Council of the administrative County of Anglesey of the existing water undertakings in that County; to empower the said County Council to construct waterworks and supply water throughout the County and for other purposes;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BECKETT HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY, BARNSLEY, BILL

"to provide for the removal of the restrictions attaching to the burial ground of the Church of St. Mary, Barnsley, in the West Riding of the County of York; for the sale and vesting thereof to and in the Trustees of the Beckett Hospital and Dispensary, Barnsley, and the use thereof for building or otherwise; and for other purposes; "presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL

"to empower the Chesterfield and Bolsover Water Board to construct additional works; to confer further powers upon the Board for the purposes of their undertaking; and for other purposes;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

"to make provision with respect to the mode of transfer of stocks of the Corporation of London; to apply stock regulations to all stocks of the Corporation; and for other purposes;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CONNAH'S QUAY GAS BILL

"to confer further powers upon the Connah's Quay Gas Company, Limited; and for other purposes;" presented, and

read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL

"to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the city and county of Kingston upon Hull to provide air transport services from and to the said city or the neighbourhood thereof; and for other purposes;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, ETC.) BILL

"to make further provision for the development of land in and in the neighbourhood of the city and county of Kingston upon Hull for industrial purposes; to confer powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of that city and county; to make further provision in reference to the transfer of stock; and for other purposes;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL

"to authorise the London and North Eastern Railway Company to establish a savings bank for their employees and others and to amalgamate therewith the existing savings banks maintained by the Company; and for other purposes;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

"to consolidate with amendments numerous enactments in force in the county of Middlesex and enactments relating to that county jointly with adjoining counties; to make provision for the local government and improvement of the county of Middlesex; and to confer powers upon the Council of and the local authorities within that county;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL

"to empower the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Company to run trolley vehicles on additional routes; and far other purposes;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (WEST RIDING) AMENDMENT BILL

"to amend the Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884, in its application to the West Riding of the County of York;" presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Detention Barracks (Staff)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements for the training of staff for military detention barracks in such barracks and not, as at present, in other places and under conditions foreign to those obtaining in such barracks.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): In accordance with the recommendation made in the Oliver Report a school of instruction for the training of the staff for military detention barracks has been established at Fort Darland. The first course assembled on 6th January. Pending its establishment arrangements were made for courses of instruction to be held at the detention barracks at Aldershot, but after the beginning of March no further courses will be held there.

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that the normal 48 hours' leave allowed to officers in military detention barracks between their normal quarterly leave, shall be given on days other than the officers' normal week-end off duty.

Sir J. Grigg: In order to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on this point a memorandum has been sent to the commandants of detention barracks explaining that the period of 48 hours' leave allowed quarterly under the normal leave rules is additional to any other leave or off-duty period.

Home Guard (Pipe Band, Kilts)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now permit units of the Home

Guard to purchase kilts for their pipe bands from existing stocks held in ordnance stores.

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid not. The supply position is such that kilts have been withdrawn—as my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware—even from Regular units except for the pipe bands of Foot Guards and of Scottish and Irish infantry regiments.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Could my right hon. Friend not reconsider his decision in view of the very special pride which Home Guard units in Scotland take in their pipe bands?

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid not. I have considered it over and over again and it is no good my promising reconsideration unless there is a prospect of success. In this case I am afraid there is no prospect.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman forbidding the Home Guard to do something they would like to do for themselves?

War Office Messengers (Establishment)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War on what basis it is decided that messengers employed at headquarters of the War Department may, in some circumstances, be established while messengers in the out-stations of the War Department are held to be ineligible for establishment.

Sir J. Grigg: This, as my hon. Friend is aware, is a question which affects the Government Service generally. The normal rule is to establish only those messengers to whom special responsibilities are allotted.

Mr. Brown: Why is it that messengers who have, as the Government know very well, been employed for the whole of their lives, are denied establishment and pensions except a small percentage?

Sir J. Grigg: I think that is a question which had better be addressed to the Minister responsible for the Civil Service as a whole.

Mr. Brown: Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the War Ministry; and cannot he use his great powers with the Treasury to see that his Department, at least, is above reproach?

South East Asia Command (Daily Paper)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the estimated cost of producing the daily paper SEAC, published in Calcutta for the South East Asia Command; the Government to which this expense will be charged; the reasons for producing a new daily newspaper when there are daily papers in Calcutta, Madras and Ceylon; and the grounds for promoting a second-lieutenant to brigadier-general as editor of SEAC.

Sir J. Grigg: As far as can be ascertained at this stage this paper will pay for itself. The ordinary Indian newspapers which in the main are produced for residents in India do not provide the type of news, particularly local home news, which the troops are anxious to have. It was therefore decided to fill this want by the production of a newspaper on the lines of the very successful Eighth Army publications and I understand that this paper, which is at present only sold east of the Bramaputra, has proved to be very popular with the troops. On the last part of my hon. Friend's Question I would refer him to a reply I gave last Tuesday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South East Essex (Flight-Lieut. Raikes).

Sir S. Reed: Would it not be very much better for the British and American Forces serving in this command to get some knowledge of the country in which they are serving, which they can only get from the regular daily Press?

Sir J. Grigg: I imagine that living in the country they will get a pretty good idea of it without recourse to the daily Press.

Major C. S. Taylor: Has this second lieutenant been given the acting or local rank of brigadier?

Sir J. Grigg: That has nothing to do with the Question. I said that I had been definitely informed that he had no local rank and that his substantive rank and his complete rank is that of second lieutenant.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not rather curious that there should be this apparent vendetta against a young officer who is as admirably suited to do this work as Mr. Owen is?

Sir Irving Albery: Would it not be better to release an officer from the Army altogether if he is to act as editor of a newspaper?

Deaths on Army Exercises (Designation)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in the case of those men who are killed while engaged in Army exercises in which live ammunition is used, he will consider changing the classification of the cause of death from accidental to something more appropriate to the circumstances of the cases, such as killed on active service.

Sir J. Grigg: The term "killed" is used, generally speaking, to designate deaths which occur in action against the enemy. All deaths which occur in the course of Army exercises are designated as "died." These include deaths which may unfortunately occur from causes such as drowning or a fall from a height, not connected with the question whether live ammunition is being used or not. I do not think therefore that the introduction of any such distinction as that suggested in the Question would be justified. But if a soldier is killed from any cause while engaged in training in this country, it is a case of death on active service.

Mr. Bower: Is it not a fact that where live ammunition is used a certain number of fatalities must be anticipated? Therefore, surely the word "accidental" is not really appropriate for cases such as these?

Sir J. Grigg: I had hoped that my answer indicated perfectly clearly that the word "accidental" was not used in published lists.

Base Hospitals, Italy (Dietary)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the provision of light diet at base hospitals in Italy is insufficient for patients suffering from gastric disorders or from dysentery, and if, to rectify this state of affairs, he will consider having the relatively small quantities of foodstuffs required supplied regularly by air.

Sir J. Grigg: I am glad to say that the incidence of dysentery and gastric disorders in this theatre of war has been very low in recent months. It has been difficult at times to maintain an adequate supply of fresh eggs but I do not know


that there has been any other difficulty in providing suitable light diets for patients in base hospitals.

Colonel Greenwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers have had to return to this country in order to obtain a suitable diet, and will he consider transporting the necessary small amount of foodstuffs by air to help out the position in base hospitals?

Sir J. Grigg: My answer, I think, casts a certain amount of doubt on my hon. and gallant Friend's information. If he still believes that his information is correct, perhaps he will send it to me.

Home Affairs (News)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the universal desire of serving men to hear topical news about home and home affairs he will arrange with E.N.S.A. the despatch of two or three selected men or women expert in topical news and primed with the required information.

Sir J. Grigg: I agree with my hon. Friend that as much news about home as possible should be provided for troops overseas. It is not, however, the function of E.N.S.A. to do this. It is done partly through newspapers and broadcasting, and much attention is being given to increasing and improving the supply of topical news through these channels. In addition, news and general information about the home front are also being given to an increasing extent as a part of Army Education by means of "British Way and Purpose" pamphlets and A.B.C.A. discussions.

A.M.G.O.T. (Officials, Italy)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it has been the practice of A.M.G.O.T. to disregard the results of free municipal elections held in forward areas in Italy under the auspices of the field security police and to replace officials so elected by the Fascist officials whom they had succeeded; and whether he will see to it that this practice shall now cease.

Sir J. Grigg: I fear the hon. Member has been gravely misinformed. No elections have been or, in the circumstances, could have been held in Italy up to date.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is absolutely unimpeachable first-hand eye-witness evidence of the facts set out in my Question, and will he re-investigate the matter, to save himself the humiliation of being hoodwinked by his own subordinates?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly investigate the evidence if the hon. Member will send it to me.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread complaint in the recovered territory of Italy against the action of A.M.G.O.T. in suppressing the wishes of the inhabitants?

Sir J. Grigg: There, too, if the hon. Member will produce unimpeachable evidence that this is so, I will certainly have it investigated.

Jews

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Jews have fought in the Middle East in our Armies there, in the Far East, and the British Isles.

Sir J. Grigg: There are at present over 40,000 Jews in the British Army and in the local Forces in the Middle East.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the number of Gentiles?

Territorial Officers (Promotions)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers serving on Territorial commissions at the outbreak of war have since been promoted to the rank of brigadier, or higher.

Sir J. Grigg: Ninety-five.

Colonel Greenwell: Is not this an unduly low proportion in view of the number of civilian Territorial Army officers now employed?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that down if he wants to ask a question about the proportion. I thought 95 was a very considerable number.

Retired Officers (Employment)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War why retired officers employed in his Department on matters requiring military experience and


incapable of transaction by civilians are none the less classed as employed in a civilian capacity, and therefore subject to non-beneficial unemployment and health insurance; and whether, in view of the resentment thereby occasioned, he will alter the classification.

Sir J. Grigg: These gentlemen, although employed in military branches, are temporary civil servants, and as such are subject to the ordinary statutory provisions of the National Insurance Acts. Unemployment and Health Insurance benefits under those Acts are secured to them and are payable without regard to means. In the circumstances, I am unable to agree to any alteration in their classification.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Do not these officers still hold the King's Commission and draw retired pay, and do they not require military knowledge to perform the duties which they have to perform? Is there any reason, in that case, why they should be classed as civilians?

Sir J. Grigg: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it is a practice which has been going on for a great many years, and I personally do not see sufficient reason for upsetting it.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is there any reason why, because it has been going on for a number of years, it should continue to go on? Is it not an injustice? These officers can derive no benefits. Does not my right hon. Friend think——

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question, but an argument.

Accommodation (Wallasey)

Mr. Reakes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement dealing with the stranding of more than 300 soldiers recently at Wallasey.

Sir J. Grigg: I am informed that the arrangements made to receive these men on the evening they arrived at Wallasey were in some respects inadequate. In particular, the cooker in their billets was defective. In view of the terms of the Question which the hon. Member addressed to me on 18th January, I should perhaps make it clear that the staff of Movement Control were in no way to

blame for this. I regret this occurrence, and the appropriate disciplinary action has been taken. I should add that as soon as it was realised that a hitch had occurred the officer in command of the unit, with the assistance of the unit which was responsible for the arrangements, immediately took emergency steps to provide the men with meals, and all the men were duly despatched on leave by six in the evening on the day after their arrival.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Was there any extension of their leave, as this happened owing to a mistake?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not know about that.

Lincolnshire Regiment

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now make public when officers and men of the Lincolnshire Regiment participated in the fighting and suffered casualties from the commencement of hostilities, say for reasons of this regiment's safety, to 31st October, 1943.

Sir J. Grigg: These details were given in a statement issued to the local Press at the end of last May. Since then this regiment has taken part in the fighting on the Burma frontier.

Mr. Rhys Davies: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman can give a list of the casualties of a single regiment, when no casualty lists at all have been issued since September, 1942, for the whole country?

Sir J. Grigg: That seems to me a very different question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

Equipment (Exhibition)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements will be made for exhibitions of Army equipment similar to that recently on view in Oxford Street to be shown in provincial cities.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are being made for such an exhibition by the Ministry of Information. It is hoped that it will be shown in Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff for a month in each town, beginning, if possible, in April.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PARKER:

3. To ask the Secretary of State for War what evidence he has of brutality done by our own men in German prison camps to fellow prisoners; and whether he will make quite clear that effective disciplinary measures will be taken against such men on their return.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. As regards this Question I observe that the hon. Member in whose name it stands is not present, but the Question contains a very serious allegation about our prisoners of war in Germany. As the Question cannot be answered orally, now, is it not desirable that an opportunity should be afforded of enabling the hon. Member to ask the Question in the House later so that supplementary questions can be put to my right hon. Friend, in order to dispose of this very serious allegation?

Mr. Speaker: It is always open to a Minister at the end of Questions to answer Questions which are on the Order Paper but have not been asked. It depends entirely on the Minister.

Sir J. Grigg: I would be very glad to read out this answer at the end of Questions if that is desired by the House.

Later—

Sir J. Grigg: In spite of the mental strain caused by long captivity I am glad to say that only three or four cases of assaults by British prisoners of war in Germany on fellow prisoners have been reported. Disciplinary action was, I understand, taken on the spot. If other cases are brought to my notice with sufficient evidence such disciplinary action as is called for will be taken when the men return to this country.

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many British prisoners of war are known to have been prisoners in Campo P.G. 154; in how many cases has further news of these prisoners been received; and in how many cases is it now considered that death must be presumed;
(2) whether he will endeavour to ascertain from those Italian authorities and individuals with whom this country now has relations such information as they may be able to furnish regarding British prisoners

of war known to have been in Italian hands, of whom no further information has been received, particularly prisoners transferred from the camps in North Africa.

Sir J. Grigg: As I stated in my reply to my hon. and learned Friend on 18th January, no official lists of prisoners of war in this camp have ever been received. As this was a transit camp there is nothing unusual about this. Many thousands of prisoners passed through this and other transit camps in North Africa before they arrived in the normal way in camps in Italy. The knowledge the War Office has that any individual British prisoners of war were at one time or another in Camp 154 is derived from information communicated by relatives who received post cards from men in that Camp, and communicated the fact to this Department. Furthermore, we have asked relatives in an advertisement in the Red Cross magazine to send such particulars as they have of cases where men have written from one camp or another in North Africa, and have not been heard of since. The number of cases reported is certainly incomplete, but it is clear from these investigations that there are about 700. I regret that it is extremely unlikely that any of these men have survived. My hon. and learned Friend will, however, appreciate that death can only be presumed in each individual case after the most careful examination of every available fact, and this process of examination is not yet complete. For over 12 months inquiries about British prisoners of war of whom nothing has been heard since transfer from North Africa have been proceeding both through the diplomatic channel, and, more recently, through the Allied military authorities in the theatre of war. The latter are, of course, in touch with the Italian authorities in the part of Italy now occupied by the Allies. I do not, however, think that those authorities, as they are at present situated, are in a position to give much information.

Mr. Hutchinson: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that these inquiries from Italian sources will be actively continued?

Sir J. Grigg: They will certainly be continued as long as there is even the slightest possibility of any result.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN WAR ZONE (WORKS OF ART AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what information he has as to the deliberate destruction by the Germans of works of art and historic buildings in Italy; and whether he will publish particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Grigg: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of two major instances which have come to my notice of Italian works of art and historical archives being deliberately and wantonly destroyed by German troops acting under the orders of the German military authorities.

Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue from time to time to give publicity to any similar acts of destruction?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, in so far as they come to my notice. But I do not guarantee that all the cases of destruction will come to my notice; in fact I am quite certain they will not, at any rate for the time being.

Following are the particulars:

Up to the present I have had information of two instances of deliberate and organised destruction of Italian works of art by the German Army. One of these has been fully described in the Press, namely, the burning of the Royal Society's Library in the University of Naples. That outrage was committed by troops acting under orders and was carried out methodically; the Italian guards who attempted resistance were shot, armed pickets in the streets kept the Italian fire brigades away from the scene, the bookshelves were soaked with petrol and the troops having flung hand-grenades into the rooms remained in the vicinity until the fire could be seen to have taken thorough hold.

The second instance is that of the Villa Montesano at Livardi near Nola. In this isolated country villa the Italian authorities had deposited a quantity of art treasures from Naples, 866 cases of selected documents from the State archives, a quantity of pictures, china and arms and armour of the Alangievi Museum; the deposit was in the charge of an administrative archives official and four guardians.

According to the reports I have received, on 28th September a German foraging party discovered the deposit and on the following day a German officer with about six men arrived from Nola and in the presence of the archives official opened selected cases and verified their contents. On that day the Chief Superintendent of South Italian Archives wrote to the German Command at Nola pointing out the importance of the archives deposit to European history. On 30th September a German incendiarist squad arrived, produced and tore up the Superintendent's letter, saying that the German Command knew everything and had given the order to burn the deposit. They put straw and incendiary powder in the various rooms of the villa and set fire to it. They then went off but returned an hour later to inspect progress; during that time the Italian official and his four men had saved what they could, but it was very little. The registers of the Hohenstaufen and Angevin Kings of Naples, of the Kings of the House of Aragon, of the Spanish and Austrian Viceroys and of the Bourbon dynasty, records of European history, ranging from the year 1239 to 1811 A.D., perished almost without exception, as did the civic and monastic charters going back to the 8th Century. Between 60 and 70 paintings were lost, including an early portrait of Botticelli and a Madonna and Child by Luini; of the china and the armour little remains.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement about the protection of works of art and historic buildings in parts of the Continent occupied or to be occupied by British troops.

Sir J. Grigg: As the statement is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Keeling: As this is a question of very considerable interest I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider answering it at the end of Questions with the permission of Mr. Speaker?

Sir J. Grigg: I am in the hands of the House but it is quite a long statement. It would take five or 10 minutes to read it. I am quite ready to do so but I did not wish to take up the time of the House.

Mr. Molson: As it is a matter on which a number of Members may wish to put supplementary questions, I hope that that will be done.

Hon. Members: No.

Following is the statement:

I would remind the House that the pursuit of our military operations to a successful conclusion must necessarily override all other considerations. Subject to this one essential proviso, the importance of protecting works of art and historic buildings is fully appreciated and Allied commanders and those under them have the responsibility of doing all they can to avoid or limit damage to monuments and artistic collections in the theatres of operations. The steps taken to carry out this responsibility in operations in the Mediterranean have been as follows:

In Tripolitania and Cyrenaica the majority of the Italian and Arab staff was retained, under the direction of a British officer who was an archaeologist by profession. In my view this organisation is satisfactory, provided that British technical supervision is available. The officer originally appointed for this purpose has, I understand, been posted elsewhere but steps are being taken either to recall or replace him.

As regards Italy and Sicily, an order was issued in April, 1943, by Allied Force Headquarters enjoining on all ranks the obligation of treating monuments and works of art with respect. In order to assist the Allied commanders in carrying out their responsibilities, a number of officer experts—English and American—was sent to North Africa to serve on the Civil Affairs staff of the Army commanders. In the United States independent committees of scholars had been formed to supply advice to the Army, and in August, 1943, a special civil Commission was set up by the President to co-ordinate these committees and to collaborate with the military authorities.

The duties assigned to the officer experts sent out to North Africa were:—

(1) To prevent any wanton or avoidable damage being done by Allied troops or others to Italian monuments and works of art in territories occupied by us.
(2) By "first-aid" methods to prevent the further deterioration of historic

buildings or monuments which have suffered war damage.
(3) To amass and check evidence of wanton destruction by the Germans of objects of art or of theft of such objects, with a view to ultimate compensation or restitution.

These duties require special knowledge in a very wide field which no one man can possess; but the whole field is reasonably covered by the body of officer experts now employed.

A great deal of valuable work has been done by the officer experts in Sicily; for instance, in Palermo no less than 18 buildings of importance are at present being sufficiently repaired under their supervision to prevent further deterioration. But there was reason to believe, especially after the invasion of Italy, that the existing organisation was not fully effective. Accordingly, in the autumn of 1943 I instructed Lieut.-Colonel Sir Leonard Woolley, who had been appointed to be the Archaeological Adviser to the Director of Civil Affairs in the War Office, to visit Sicily and Italy at the earliest opportunity. As a result of his visit it was found that in practice the organisation which had been set up required modification to adapt it to the conditions in the field, and that the authority of those in charge of these matters required further definition and strengthening. As regards the organisation it is now proposed that there should be a separate sub-commission for Monuments and Fine Arts within the Allied Control Commission. The Director and the Deputy Director of this sub-commission will have at their disposal the services of the experts, who have been formed into pools so that they can be distributed to the best advantage. An advanced pool has been posted to 15 Army Group Headquarters and officers are attached from it to the staffs of the Fifth and Eighth Armies, who can call for additional experts from the pool as and when necessary.

At Sir Leonard Woolley's suggestion General Eisenhower issued general orders reiterating and emphasising the importance of protecting monuments and works of art and setting out the responsibilities of commanders in this matter. The text of these orders is appended to this answer. Such few cases as there have been of avoidable or wanton damage are


at present under special examination with a view to disciplinary action.

In view of the probability of military operations elsewhere than in Italy, plans are already being made for similar organisations to be set up in these theatres. In making these plans, full advantage is being taken of the experience gained in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, in order that the mistakes which were made in the initial stages of those campaigns, and which in the circumstances were perhaps inevitable, may be avoided.

Following is the text of the orders:

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ORDER NUMBER 68.

HISTORICAL MONUMENTS.

1. Buildings.

(a) No building listed in the sections "Works of Art" in the "Zone Hand-Books" of Italy issued by the Political Warfare Executive to all Allied Military Government officers will be used for military purposes without the explicit permission of the Allied Commander-in-Chief or of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, 15th Army Group in each individual case.
(b) Commanders concerned are authorised, as a further measure of security, to close and put out of bounds for troops any of the buildings listed in AMG "Zone Hand-Book" that they deem necessary.

Notices to that effect will be affixed to the buildings, and guards provided to enforce them if necessary.

(c) Allied Military Government officers are prepared to furnish commanders with a list of historical buildings other than those listed in the AMG "Zone Hand-Book." These buildings are of secondary importance and may be used for military purposes when deemed necessary. Commanders are reminded that buildings containing art collections, scientific objects, or those which when used would offend the religious susceptibilities of the people, should not be occupied when alternative accommodations are available.

2. Looting, Wanton Damage and Sacrilege.

The prevention of looting, wanton damage and sacrilege of buildings is a command responsibility. The seriousness of such an offence will be explained to all Allied personnel.

SUBJECT: Historical Monuments.

To: All Commanders.

To-day we are fighting in a country which has contributed a great deal to our cultural inheritance, a country rich in monuments which by their creation helped and now in their old age illustrate the growth of the civilisation which is ours. We are bound to respect those monuments so far as war allows.

If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then our men's lives count infinitely more and the buildings must go. But the choice is not always so clear-cut as that. In many cases the monuments can be spared without any detriment to operational needs. Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. That is an accepted principle. But the phrase "military necessity" is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even personal convenience. I do not want it to cloak slackness or indifference.

It is a responsibility of higher commanders to determine through A.M.G. officers the locations of historical monuments whether they be immediately ahead of our front lines or in areas occupied by us. This information passed to lower echelons through normal channels places the responsibility on all Commanders of complying with the spirit of this letter.

(Sgd.) DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER,

General, U.S. Army.

Commander-in-Chief.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consult with the other Service Ministers with a view to arranging that, where an officer or man receives a decoration or award but is discharged before notification can reach his unit, he will be personally notified and sent a copy of the citation.

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but until there has been full examination of the amount of work involved and other considerations I should not like to commit myself.

Sir I. Fraser: While thanking my right hon. Friend, might I ask him to give very sympathetic consideration to this matter, because it clearly causes great disappointment if a man gets an award and does not know what it is for?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly give sympathetic consideration to it, but my hon. and gallant Friend must allow me to take into account the very serious shortages of staff from which most Government Departments suffer at this stage of the war.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Africa Star will be awarded to Allied personnel serving under British command in Africa, and, in particular, to the Polish Carpathian Brigade of General Kopanski, which distinguished itself at Tobruk and Gazallah.

Sir P. Grigg: The award of the Africa Star is confined to personnel of the British, Dominion, Indian and Colonial Forces. The unit to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is a part of the Polish Forces, and as such qualifies for any awards instituted by the Polish Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITAL SHIPS (ENEMY ATTACKS)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that German forces, in defiance of all humane rules of warfare, continually attack hospital ships showing an illuminated Red Cross, he will consider the suggestion that this practice should be discontinued.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. Commanders-in-Chief have authority to adopt any measures for the security of hospital ships consistent with the relevant international conventions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any of the last allocation of houses have been completed.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The actual work of construction of last year's special allocation

did not begin until the late summer, and no group of houses, I am informed, has yet been completed.

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the number of rooms requisitioned in Greenock by the Services; and whether he will make representations to have released for housing purposes those requisitioned by the Services but used otherwise than as dwelling-rooms.

Mr. Johnston: I have obtained from the town clerk of Greenock a list of private dwelling-houses requisitioned by the Service Departments, and I have written to the Departments concerned asking them whether any of these can be released for housing purposes.

Mr. McNeil: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that figures have already been given, and will he direct action to be taken upon those figures?

Mr. Johnston: That is what I am doing now.

Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. Friend make some inquiries in the City of Glasgow to see whether Service Departments which have taken rooms over are really utilising them?

Mr. Johnston: If my hon. Friend can give me any instances of where it is not being done I will certainly take action.

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when and where the first tribunals to assess fair rents for furnished sub-let tenancies will sit.

Mr. Johnston: The Glasgow tribunal has already been set up. I understand that over 100 cases have been referred to it, regarding which it is in communication with the lessors and lessees in accordance with the regulations under the Statute. Sittings of the tribunal for oral hearings will be arranged as necessary, and due intimation given to the parties affected. So far 113 other local authorities have represented that the recent Act should be applied to their areas. It is proposed to cover these areas by 25 tribunals, and selection of and invitations to individuals to become members of these tribunals is being proceeded with.

Mr. McNeil: Is there any area in which the local authority have asked for a tribunal and been refused?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir.

Infant Mortality (Report)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the Report of the committee presided over by Sir John Boyd Orr dealing with child mortality; and what action it is proposed to take.

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. On the day of publication, I invited the associations of local authorities and other interested bodies to consider the report with a view to discussions which I propose to open immediately. I may add that preliminary estimates indicate that the infant mortality rate, while still unsatisfactory, is likely to be lower in 1943 than it has ever been in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan: Am I to understand that this is a reason for not discussing this report, which discloses a most ghastly situation; and is it a fact that the Minister consulted with only one or two authorities?

Mr. Johnston: Not one or two authorities. As I said, I have invited the associations of local authorities, which covers them all, to consider the report, and, as the hon. Member is aware, there are many matters of great variety in which I hope to stimulate activity.

Mrs. Hardie: Will the Minister press on local authorities to proceed immediately to provide maternity accommodation, in view of the shocking housing conditions that exist?

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that, if this report applied to some other country, this whole House would be shocked at the terrible state of affairs disclosed, but because it is about a part of Scotland, where this has always been known, it is ignored?

Mr. Johnston: The report is not being ignored. It was published as early as possible, and I drew the attention of the associations of local authorities to it on the day of publication. Arrangements are now being made for active preparation for remedial action as far as possible.

Sir R. W. Smith: In a very short time, we shall be having a Supply Day, and it will be perfectly appropriate to raise this question on the Minister's salary. May I ask the Minister however if he will see that we have a whole day in this House to deal

with this question, not merely a general Supply Day, on which other subjects can be discussed, as this is a serious matter?

Mr. Johnston: That is a question which ought to be put to the Leader of the House.

Sir R. W. Smith: May I put the question to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister aware that the vital statistics and all material evidence have been at the disposal of his Office during his whole term of office; and is there any guarantee that he will take any more active measures now, than he has done in all the past years when he had the matter under control?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that this is one of the few civilised countries in the world where no provision is made for the expectant mother in industry, and that she is worn-out even before her confinement?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Conscientious Objectors (Employment)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent conscientious objectors have proved proficient when employed in the coalmines; and whether he proposes to extend employment of these people in the coalfields.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): In reply to the first part of the Question, there is no information available about the proficiency of individual miners. With regard to the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. Members for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) and Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on 9th December, 1943.

Sir T. Moore: As I have not the answer by me, could the Minister say whether he is not prepared to take suitable steps with conscientious objectors at the same time as the calling-up of these young untrained boys?

Major Lloyd George: They are, in fact, treated like the others called up, and there is no differentiation at all.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Minister invite those hon. Members who want to force everybody else down the pits to go down the pits themselves?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister not aware that, in the mining villages, we neither know nor care whether they are conscientious objectors or not? We want conscientious coal-getters to get coal, and that is all that matters to us.

Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister aware that all the boys being sent to the mines just now are conscientious objectors?

Domestic Supplies

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the hardship experienced by householders who have neither gas or electricity available either for cooking or for heating; and whether he will authorise local fuel overseers to allow additional supplies of coal in such cases.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 18th January to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox).

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that in the city of Glasgow residents in tenement buildings are only allowed five cwts. per month of coal; that they have no storage accommodation; that, in most cases, they have neither gas nor electric fire; that this allotment is inadequate and particularly so where there are young children; and will he cause inquiry to be made into the position.

Major Lloyd George: The maximum quantity of house coal which may be supplied to controlled premises in Glasgow is, in February, as it was in January, 5 cwts. per month. I appreciate the need to make special provision for consumers who have no storage accommodation. Those who had such accommodation were urged to stock up during last summer and autumn in order to release labour and transport during the winter to supply those with no storage accommodation and priority of delivery is now being given to householders without reserve stocks. With the exercise of proper economy and the judicious use of alternative fuels, I am satisfied that 5 cwts. per month should suffice to avoid undue hardship in the majority of cases, but the Local Fuel Overseer has authority to grant licences for additional quantities in cases of illness or where there is exceptional need.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that, in practically one-half of the houses

in the city of Glasgow, five cwt. is the total consumption of coal, and alongside all that there are people who have been able to store larger amounts and who still receive the five cwt.; and will he take steps to sweep away this awful form of rationing which has no equality? I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again, because it is indefensible.

Wage Rates (National Tribunal Award)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the Government's policy for wage rates in the coal-mining industry; what are the terms of reference of the National Reference Tribunal; and whether their award of 22nd January was related to a change in the cost of living, to production, or other economic considerations.

Major Lloyd George: The Government's policy for wages machinery in the coal-mining industry was set out in paragraph 20 of the White Paper on Coal (Cmd. 6364) published on 3rd June, 1942; the functions of the National Reference Tribunal were set out in the third report of the board of investigation into wages and machinery for determining wages and conditions of employment in the coalmining industry which was incorporated in an agreement between the Mining Association and the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain on 25th May, 1943; the Tribunal's Award on 22nd January resulted from a reference to the Tribunal of an application by the Mineworkers' Federation; the grounds for the decision were stated in the Award and summarised by the Chairman, Lord Porter, in a statement issued to the Press on 23rd January.

Sir J. Mellor: Do the Government expect the award to increase production; and what will be the increase in the retail price of coal if the Government accept the award?

Major Lloyd George: Obviously, I must have notice of the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as the Government cannot possibly tell at this stage, and with regard to the first part relating to increased production, we had better wait and see.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that this means nothing whatever to the key men in the way of an increase and that it will have a very bad effect generally on the coal mining industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he will have a survey made of all rivers, lakes, etc., in order to ascertain where hydroelectric power production can be obtained;
(2) if consideration has been given to the practicability of harnessing the river at Conway for the production of hydroelectric power; and if he will have a comprehensive scheme considered on the basis of social ownership.

Major Lloyd George: The areas in Great Britain where hydro-electric power resources exist, which might be capable of development on an economic basis are now being surveyed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the North Wales Power Company, who have included the harnessing of the River Conway in their survey.

Mr. E. Smith: Does that mean that the Ministry themselves are not taking the initiative in this matter; is the Minister not aware that this country is the most backward in the production of hydroelectric power of any in the world; and will he take the matter up himself?

Major Lloyd George: We cannot do wonders. In regard to the Severn, as the hon. Member knows, we are looking into that now. Regarding the North of Scotland, the North of Scotland Board is the most appropriate body to look into that part of the country, and, as a survey has already been started on the Conway, I thought we had better wait until results come in.

Mr. E. Smith: Are the Government acquiescing in the monopoly development of the natural resources of the country?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think that arises on this Question. The hon. Member asks if a survey is being made. A survey is being made. What happens after that is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING (MOTOR-CAR HIRE TRADE)

Mr. Oswald Lewis: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why his Department has made a bargain with certain interests in the motor-car hire trade that no petrol allowance at the special rates authorised for hiring shall be made to any applicants

who were not engaged in this sort of business immediately before the outbreak of war; and why he will not waive this restriction in the case of disabled ex-Servicemen who can satisfy the licensing authorities that they are qualified to follow this occupation.

Major Lloyd George: In order to conserve petrol, there is an administrative rule, not a bargain with interests in the hire-car trade, that the special petrol allowance for a hire car shall be granted only for a car which was bona-fide engaged in hire service before the war, or for a car replacing it. The rule applies both to existing proprietors who wish to add to their hire cars and to would-be entrants to the trade: but an exception is made where there is adequate evidence of public need. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 25th January.

Mr. Lewis: Arising out of the Minister's statement, if I show the Minister a statement, signed by an eminent official of his Department, showing that there was a bargain and that many hard cases have arisen under it, will he seriously look into the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot say anything about that document, but I can say that the purpose of this rule is as stated in the answer to the Question, and there is no other purpose in it.

Mr. Lewis: I asked the Minister whether, if I showed him a statement signed by one of his own officials, showing that there was a bargain, he would look into the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I will certainly look into it, but I can assure the hon. Member that there was no bargain. It is a rule. I have looked into the matter very carefully.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that the plentiful supply of petrol to taxis is resented by some car hirers, because it is recognised, and can be proved, that there is much more joy-riding in taxis than in private-hire cars?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (AGREEMENT)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the United Kingdom is, or will


be, a party to the agreement signed between Australia and New Zealand, in which questions of defence and security play an important part; and whether the full text will be made available to hon. Members.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I am arranging for the text of the Agreement, as received by telegram, to be placed in the Library. As my hon. Friend will see, the Agreement is one between Australia and New Zealand and is designed to provide for closer co-operation between the two Dominions. As my Noble Friend has stated in another place, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom welcome the decision to hold this Conference and are glad that they will have the opportunity at the forthcoming meeting here with Dominion Prime Ministers of discussing the conclusions reached.

Sir A. Beit: In view of the fact that this is the first agreement under the proposed regionalisation arrangement, is it not desirable that this country should be a party to any agreement in which matters of defence are involved, in view of our greater population, industrial and other categories than other parts of the Empire?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: This matter will be discussed at the meeting of Prime Ministers.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say whether at any stage His Majesty's Government were consulted, as this is a matter which profoundly affects the position of this country?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir, it is an agreement between two Dominions and His Majesty's Government are not concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (POST-WAR DEVELOPMENT)

Mr. Storey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the development of Bechuanaland.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Plans are being worked out for the post-war development of the Bechuanaland Protectorate which, it is hoped, may be assisted financially under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act or 1940. Schemes so far

definitely approved under that Act provide for an expenditure of£118,540 in respect of the control of Tsetse fly and the further development of water supplies, on which considerable sums have been provided in recent years. Certain new irrigation works are also being financed from the Territory's revenue.
Other schemes are being prepared or are under consideration relating to agriculture and veterinary development, education, housing for natives and the expansion of the medical services.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Are the schemes following the suggestion made in Sir Alan Pim's recommendations?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I had better have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Cotton Spinning Mills (Air-conditioning)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many permits have been granted by his Department for the installation of air-conditioning plants in cotton spinning mills in the last two years; and in what respects are the conditions at these mills different from the conditions at those mills where permits have been refused.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): During 1942 and 1943, 50 licences were granted. Each application is carefully investigated and licences are granted where the need is greatest.

Mr. Hammersley: Does not that show that, in spite of the repeated statements of the right hon. Gentleman that he desires to remove these restrictions, in point of fact very little has been done, and will he see that in future there is less obstruction in the granting of these licences?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. What it shows is, that the majority of applications have been granted—50 granted and only 38 refused. We shall do all we can, within the limits of labour and material available, to meet the claims of other industries as well as cotton.

Electric Torch Batteries

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great shortage of batteries for


torches and cycle lamps in Yorkshire; and what steps are being taken to improve the existing supply.

Mr. Dalton: My area distribution officers are looking into this matter. I understand that deliveries of batteries for some districts of Yorkshire have recently been delayed, but supplies are now on the way.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage is causing great danger in the black-out as well as presenting a considerable problem in regard to transport?

Mr. Dalton: We are doing better than last winter; we have increased production compared with that of last winter.

Women's Clothing

Mrs. Adamson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention to make concessions and coupon readjustments in austerity clothing for women.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The special reasons which have led me to remove the style restrictions on men's suits, and which I explained last week, do not apply to women's clothes.

Mrs. Adamson: If the women's organisations bring pressure to bear on my right hon. Friend for a special concession and a coupon readjustment, will be capitulate in the same way as he did to the men in respect of pockets and fancy turn-ups?

Mr. Dalton: I think that women are much more reasonable and much less conservative than men in these matters, and I want to thank them.

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that large stocks of ladies' coats and costumes are at present being frozen in many warehouses along with millions of coupons; and will he instruct manufacturers what steps can immediately be taken to relieve or ease the position?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. At the end of November wholesalers' stocks of women's coats and costumes represented only one and a half months' sales, which is not excessive.

Wireless Sets (Scotland)

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of

the new wireless sets, shortly to be available, will be allocated to Scotland; what arrangements for fair distribution will be made; and the prices to be charged.

Mr. Dalton: Both the imported sets and the war-time standard sets will be distributed to retailers on the basis of pre-war trade. I have no reason to fear that Scotland will not receive her fair share. I hope shortly to announce maximum prices for these sets.

Radio Valves and Component Parts

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause the supply of radio valves and component parts to be increased in order that sets now out of commission may be brought into active use; and will he make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Dalton: Supplies of many types of valves for civilian wireless sets are adequate, but some special types are short. In view of the very heavy Service demands, I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of an early increase. I am glad to say that larger quantities of other components are now available for civilian wireless sets than last year.

Mr. Mathers: May I take it that these valves and components are being fairly distributed?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, I hope so. If, however, in any particular district there seems to be a shortage, my officers will look into it and try to correct it.

Razor Blades

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the proportionate differences in the allocation of razor blades to civilians and to men in the Services; and whether he can hold out any hope of an increase in the allocation to civilians.

Mr. Dalton: On the average, a man in the Forces now gets about twice as many blades as a man in civil life. Production is strictly limited by the labour and material available. But I am glad to say that there has been some increase lately.

Mr. Bartlett: Would my right hon. Friend tell us why there must be this discrepancy; and is he aware that, if it goes on, he will be complicating your task,


Mr. Speaker, because some of us will have to come to this House wearing large and bushy beards?

Mr. Dalton: Were my hon. Friend so to act, he would not incur the same penalties as if he were in the Forces.

Cotton Spinning Mills (Minor Equipment)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences to install minor equipment to improve working conditions in cotton spinning mills, the cost of which does not exceed£200, have been refused by his Department during the last 12 months.

Mr. Dalton: For air-conditioning plant costing£200 or less, two applications were refused in 1943 and 13 were granted. For portable industrial vacuum cleaners, nine applications were refused and three were granted.

Mr. Hammersley: Does that answer indicate that there is some discrimination? Why should these desirable improvements be refused when, by the terms of the Question, the amount of material and man-power required is very small?

Mr. Dalton: There must be discrimination so long as we receive the advice of factory inspectors, whom we always consult on this matter, as to which case is most urgent. There is not enough to go round.

British Aluminium Company, Limited

Mr. Astor: asked the President of the Board of Trade why representations were made by the Government to the British Aluminium Company, Limited, to remove from the boards of companies connected with it an Ally whose name has been given him and who has been serving for two years in the R.A.F. receiving the D.F.C. and bar.

Mr. Dalton: No such representations have been made by the Board of Trade nor, so far as I am aware, by any other Government Department.

Mr. Astor: In view of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the company, the feeling that their action towards this wing-commander is most un-chivalrous and unworthy of British hospita-

lity and ask them to consider sympathetically his reinstatement on the board?

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: Is it not disgraceful that a man who has served the Allied cause so well should have this discrimination preferred against him?

Mr. Dalton: My Department has no responsibility in the matter.

Mr. Astor: But will the right hon. Gentleman convey the opinion which has been expressed in this House to the company?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps they will read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Post-war Exports (Russia)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make some pronouncement regarding the arrangements that have been concluded for expanding and developing our export trade to Russia for the post-war period.

Mr. Dalton: Trade between this country and Russia is at present conducted under arrangements agreed between the two Governments. These are, of course, concerned with the supply of goods essential to the war effort. It is not at present possible to say when, or how, these arrangements will need to be modified. But, whatever arrangements are made for the post-war period, His Majesty's Government look forward to a large and expanding trade between our two countries.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider at this stage of the war, encouraging those engaged in the export trade to get a footing in the markets of the world?

Mr. Dalton: This Question is about trade with Russia. We hope to have a large footing in the Russian market after the war and we hope that they will have a large footing in ours.

Rubber Boots (Rural Postmen)

Mr. Loverseed: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for permission to be granted to postmen in rural districts to purchase rubber knee-boots free of coupons.

Mr. Dalton: Postmen, for whose duties rubber boots are considered essential by the Post Office, already receive a coupon-free issue. In view of the many claims


upon the very limited supplies available, I regret that any wider issue is not possible.

Mr. Naylor: May we take it from that reply, that the Minister is determined that these men shall be "masters of their feet and captains of their soles"?

British Film Industry

Captain Gammans: asked the President of the Board of Trade in what Act or Regulation there is a definition of what constitutes a British film; and what are the necessary qualifications.

Mr. Dalton: These qualifications are set out in Section 25 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, and in two subsequent Orders in Council. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend copies of the Act and of these two Orders.

Major Petherick: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to revise the Act relating to British film production; and whether he proposes shortly to set up a committee to reconsider the position upon the lines of the Moyne Committee of 1936.

Mr. Dalton: The Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, does not expire until 1948. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Major Petherick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some alarm in the country lest control of the British film industry should ultimately pass overseas? Will the Government take any action that seems suitable to them to prevent that happening?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I am carefully watching the position. But, in view of the period the present Act has still to run, it is premature to set up a Committee at the moment.

Alarm Clocks

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made by his Department to regulate the sale of alarm clocks.

Mr. Dalton: As the number of alarm clocks imported from North America is very limited, I have arranged for them to be sold only against buying permits, available to those workers who have regularly to get up between midnight and 5 a.m. These permits are issued through the trade unions, and through certain

Government Departments. The clocks, on importation, are distributed, through the horological trade pool, to wholesalers for supply to retailers against permits surrendered to them by their customers.

Mr. Storey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Sunderland there are more alarm clocks than permits; and does he not think that it would be as well for him to get one, so as to wake himself from his dream of regulating both the waking and sleeping hours of the public?

Mr. Dalton: I hope my hon. Friend has one himself. I will draw his observations to the attention of those concerned.

Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will shortly take steps to put the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, into full operation?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have decided to fix 15th April as the date by which applications for licences to deal in securities must be submitted to my Department. Some further time must be allowed for consideration of these applications, and I aim at bringing the Act into full operation by the middle of July next.

Lancashire Textile Industry (Report)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the report issued under the auspices of all sections of the Lancashire textile industry, a copy of which has been sent to him, in particular those suggestions affecting his Department and with what result?

Mr. Dalton: I am considering this report with close attention, but I am not at present able to make any statement on it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has my right hon. Friend also received a report prepared by the trade unions on this matter and, if so, will he give it the same attention?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, certainly. As my hon. Friend knows a number of trade union representatives were on the committee which made the report referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend says he is considering the subject. When does


he think that I might reasonably put down another Question to find out what is in his mind about the report, if anything is in his mind about it by then?

Mr. Dalton: I have a lot in my mind but I think it premature to make a statement until I have had a little more time to study the report. It has taken a long while to compile and it must be read with care, because it represents the work of many months by prominent people in the industry.

Mr. Hammersley: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the desirability of giving the House an opportunity to debate this matter, because it introduces most important factors in relation to our export trade?

Mr. Dalton: That is a matter for the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES (FORMAL DATE, DETERMINATION)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Prime Minister if he can yet state the principle which will be applied in determining the date of the end of the war or the cessation of hostilities, as at that date, or a fixed period thereafter, certain wartime agreements come to an end.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No doubt at some date hostilities will cease in the different theatres of war. It is not for me to state what principles the courts would apply in construing the terms of agreements. Nor am I prepared at present to make any statement as to the principles on which the United Nations will proceed in determining any formal date upon which the war will be deemed to be concluded.

Mr. Mathers: Will the Prime Minister realise that I am really trying to obtain in more precise terms what is meant by a statement such as that in the Railway Control Agreement, which says that control will cease at a minimum of one year after the cessation of hostilities; and could he not put the matter further forward than in the statement he has just made?

The Prime Minister: I certainly see the difficulties but I do not see a way round them.

Sir Herbert Williams: As a great many agreements have been concluded on the basis of the words "termination of the present emergency," and having regard to the fact that these words appear in the Emergency Powers Act, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question?

The Prime Minister: The courts will have to decide upon these matters in the absence of legislation by Parliament.

Mr. A. Bevan: In view of the fact that the courts will have exactly the same difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman, will the Government make inquiries into the matter and determine upon some form in order to guide the courts in the matter?

The Prime Minister: I certainly think the matter must always be considered but although the courts have the same difficulties as we have, it is their business most specifically to solve them as each case arises—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—in the absence of legislation.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is there any reason why the Government should not do what they did at the end of the last war, and define a date as marking the end of the war?

The Prime Minister: It will be so much easier to define that date when we have actually reached it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CASUALTIES (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will give the several dates upon which lists of our casualties were issued during the war of 1914–18; and similar details for the present conflict.

The Prime Minister: The information for which my hon. Friend asks in respect of 1914–18 is not readily available and in present circumstances I do not consider that the time taken to obtain it would be justified. As regards the last part of the Question, full returns of casualties to all ranks of the British Empire have been given up to the first three years of war. As my hon. Friend has been informed, the total number of casualties of the Armed Forces of the British Empire for the first four years of war is now being prepared but detailed publication is unlikely before April.

Mr. Davies: Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest that it would take a great deal of time to give a list of the dates of the issue of the casualty lists in the last war?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that the whole period would have to be searched in order to see when announcements were made. How else could the Question be answered?

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION (B.B.C. CHARTER)

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister the date on which the B.B.C. charter expires; if it is intended to renew it in its present form; and whether he will give this House an opportunity to debate its existing provisions in relation to the future of broadcasting and television.

The Prime Minister: The charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation will expire on 31st December, 1946. The form in which it is to be renewed will require, and is already receiving, careful consideration by the Government. I cannot make any statement on the matter at present. Upon the last part of the Question, I cannot hold out any hope of a special opportunity being afforded in the near future for a Debate. The matter could, of course, however, be raised in the normal course of Business.

Mr. Granville: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if the House of Commons should not be given an opportunity to discuss the future of television and an alternative system of broadcasting, before any long-term decisions are made by the B.B.C.?

The Prime Minister: All the opportunities which Parliamentary procedure provides are at the disposal of the House. The Question is one of special opportunity being given in the case of Government Business.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon Friend aware of the excellent work being carried out by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee of this House and will be consider appointing a member of that Committee to the Standing Committee recently appointed by the Government to consider and make recommendations for the future of television?

The Prime Minister: I must ask for notice of that Question.

Mr. Granville: May I ask the Prime Minister about a point which is causing some doubt in this House, namely, whether the charter is, at this moment, vested in the Postmaster-General or in the Minister of Information?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, that is a matter of which I should have notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that the present method of consultation between Dominion leaders is adequate for day to day co-operation on Commonwealth policy; and if the recent speech of Lord Halifax, our Ambassador in Washington, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: The proper occasion for consideration of such issues is a meeting between the Prime Ministers of the Empire. It is hoped to hold such a meeting at an early date. Lord Halifax in his recent speech at Toronto about co-operation within the British Commonwealth was not making any pronouncement on behalf of His Majesty's Government. His speech, like those of other distinguished figures on this subject, was a valuable contribution to study and discussion.

Mr. Granville: Does that mean the House will be given no opportunity to express an opinion on these problems until the Dominion Prime Ministers' Conference has been concluded?

The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine that such a conclusion could be read into what I have just said.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply to that supplementary question, and having regard to the fact that Lord Halifax, and the other place, and several other distinguished persons have expressed their opinions on this question of Empire co-operation, would it not be desirable, and would it not strengthen my right hon. Friend's hand if the House debated the matter?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter to be put to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I put the matter to the Deputy Prime Minister but he was reluctant to give a definite reply?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly be bound to imitate his reluctance.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Can my right hon. Friend inform us who is the moving spirit behind these attacks on Lord Halifax?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS (ARMY SERVICE)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Prime Minister how much longer it is proposed to retain in the Army experienced miners under 36 years of age who are anxious to return to the mines and who are now engaged on menial jobs such as looking after wash-houses and feeding pigs and cleaning out their sties.

The Prime Minister: The word "menial" should not be applied in any disparaging sense to
looking after wash-houses and feeding pigs and cleaning out their sties.
All forms of duty required by the State in time of war are worthy of respect, and class or occupational prejudice about them should not be encouraged. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish we with the names of
experienced miners under 36 years of age who are anxious to return to the mines,
but whose work in the Army consists wholly or even mainly in
looking after wash-houses and feeding pigs and cleaning out their sties
and who have no prospects of taking part in operations of war, I will give my personal attention to their cases.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will accept my word, that the expression "menial," is used by these men themselves and that there are plenty of examples. My Question is, how long it is proposed to maintain the present system—the arbitrary date in October, 1943, below which men who wish to do so may go back to the mines?

The Prime Minister: I took the precaution, before answering this Question, of looking up the word, "menial," in the dictionary and I found that it is generally used in a contemptuous sense. But I am sure that is not what my hon. Friend intended, and I was making that clear, in

the character of my answer, to show how glad I was that he had not adopted that interpretation. I guarded myself in my answer by saying that it should not be applied in any disparaging way.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter is more serious than might be indicated by his reply? In many parts of the coalfields at the present time men and women are resisting putting up the men sent to their districts under the scheme because trained miners, their husbands and sons, have wasted their time for the last three or four years without doing anything in the Army of importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

War Widows' Pensions (Taxation)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give sympathetic consideration to making a concession in connection with war widows' pensions so as to provide for these pensions being tax free up to£100 per annum, in cases where the war widow is left with one or two children to support.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am afraid I could not see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Proposals for the grant of relief from tax in respect of war widows' pensions have been made on several occasions and have been considered and rejected in Finance Bill Debates. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that the widow with children is entitled to the Income Tax child allowance of£50 for each child, and that under Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1922, allowances granted by the Ministry of Pensions to a war widow in respect of her children are excluded from the computation of her income for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer sounds reasonable but when looked into more thoroughly, it is not quite so reasonable?

Sir J. Anderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked into the matter thoroughly.

Capital Levy

Mr. Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to introduce a capital levy for the purpose of reducing the National Debt.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas) on 19th October, 1943.

Deaf Aid Instruments (Income Tax Allowance)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will arrange for a rebate, in respect of the purchase of batteries for deaf-aid instruments, to persons compelled to use such instruments in order to carry on their business.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I understand that what my hon. Friend has in mind is an Income Tax allowance and I regret that I cannot entertain such a proposal. Suggestions have been made from time to time in the past for special allowances in respect of expenses arising out of illness and disability. However much sympathy may be felt with such cases it has been necessary to adhere to the principle that the Income Tax cannot be adjusted so as to take into account the varying circumstances of individual taxpayers.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel Sir THOMAS MOORE:
69.—To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare if he can make any further statement regarding the present position of German occupied countries, especially Greece and Belgium, in respect of the import and distribution of food supplies from the United Nations and neutral countries.

Sir T. Moore: In Question No. 69, Mr. Speaker, I ask for some information which is of tremendous interest to a vast number of people. May I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary can make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: The Question was not reached and Question Time is now over.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Buchanan: I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question regarding the Orr Report on Infant Mortality in Scotland. I would like to know whether it is possible to have time to discuss this subject. I know that the answer which can be given to me is that we can discuss

it on a Scottish Supply Day but I am suggesting that this report raises, in full relief, certain issues that are not merely Scottish issues alone. As there are some ghastly things revealed in this report, could the right hon. Gentleman give us special time for its consideration by the House?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have gone into this matter and I find that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) has the Adjournment Motion, in about a fortnight, to discuss this matter. Of course, I understand that that will give opportunity only for a brief discussion and I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who feels, with the Government, that this is a matter on which we should seek to give an opportunity for full discussion. I cannot say here and now how we will contrive it but it is the Government's wish that the Report should be discussed. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to allow us to make the necessary arrangements in the ordinary way.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, with out Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED

INCOME TAX (OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS) BILL,

"to amend the law relating to income tax in respect of certain emoluments;" presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Assheton; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed.[Bill 10.]

ELECTORAL REFORM

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the proposal of His Majesty's Government to set up a Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats and to invite Mr. Speaker to preside.
In moving this Motion, I should, perhaps, make it clear that it will be my duty to give the House the historical background of the subject which we shall be discussing to-day and to indicate the scope of the matters which will be appropriate for consideration by Mr. Speaker's Conference. It is not part of my duty to argue controversially the various matters which will be down for consideration but merely to indicate what those subjects are. There is no reason, however, why, because Ministers, in advance of Mr. Speaker's Conference, should be circumspect and impartial in indicating the scope of the matters to be dealt with, Members in all parts of the House should not speak with full frankness and clearness in stating their views on what should be done. Indeed, part of the purpose of this two-day Debate is to enable all elements in the House to say what they think, and indicate the views they hold on the various matters which will come before the Conference over which, it is hoped you, Mr. Speaker, will preside. Perhaps it would be useful to the House if I indicated in a short summary what happened in connection with the Speaker's Conference which was set up in 1916. I think this was the first time that the device of a Speaker's Conference had been used for matters of this sort. I think everyone will agree that it was eminently useful, and a precedent which it would be well for the House to follow on this occasion. The terms of reference of the Speaker's Conference of 1916 were as follow:
To examine and if possible, submit agreed resolutions on the following matters (a) reform of the franchise, (b) basis for redistribution of seats, (c) reform of the system of registration of electors, and (d) methods of elections and the manner in which the cost of the elections should be borne.
The Conference was composed of five Members of the House of Peers and 27 Members of the House of Commons, selected by Mr. Speaker Lowther. The problems before that Conference were considerable in number, in importance


and in complexity. There had been no Franchise Act since 1884 and woman suffrage at that time was, I would not myself say a difficult, but it certainly was a controversial, and for many politicians a rather dangerous subject which had to be faced and settled. There had been great pre-war struggles about it, but I think it can fairly be said that the part that women played in the last war was really the deciding factor that settled the argument and the principle of woman suffrage. That issue is now settled. There were many and varied qualifications at that time for the Parliamentary franchise and the law as to the compilation of the lists of electors was rather complex. There had been no redistribution since 1885. Consequently, the Conference had big and important issues before it. It did its work and reported in January, 1917, when it submitted to the House agreed resolutions for Parliamentary consideration, and it is satisfactory to observe that on this occasion its recommendations were embodied almost without alteration in the Representation of the People Act, 1918.
We got thereby a recasting of the electoral law on a comprehensive and considerable scale, and it is the law as embodied in that Act which is substantially the electoral law of to-day. These are the outstanding points which were changed—and they represented a considerable programme of change. The qualifying period was reduced from one year to six months. Fresh registers were to be published each Spring and Autumn and for some years that was the case. Two franchises were established other than the University franchise, the one based on residence and the other based on occupation of business premises, and these were substituted for all existing franchises. Women over 30 were enfranchised. Maximum limits to expenses of candidates were fixed at 6d. a head in counties and 5d. in boroughs. The local government franchise was reformed, and subject to a six months residence qualification, any person who occupied, as owner or tenant, any land or premises was entitled to be registered.
Finally, there was a scheme of redistribution based on two main principles, first that each vote should, as far as possible, command an equal share of

representation in the House of Commons and, second, that the number of Members of the House should remain, substantially, as it was. However, that was not entirely achieved for, including the Irish membership of the House which then obtained, the total membership was increased from 670 to 707. Then there followed the work of the boundary commissioners in relation to redistribution, and the instructions to the boundary commissioners again were based upon Conference recommendations. Representation was to be based on population, with 70,000 as the standard unit for each Member, and counties or boroughs with less than 50,000 were to cease to have separate representation as a general principle. Boroughs or urban districts with 70,000 or more were to become separate Parliamentary boroughs. It was also recommended and decided that boroughs which were still entitled to return two Members, that is to say the double-Member constituencies, should still return two Members and remain undivided and there was a special saving for the ancient and historic city of London. The boundaries of constituencies were to coincide, as far as practicable, with the boundaries of administrative areas. These were, of course, subject to discretion to vary them in exceptional circumstances.
But there have been changes since. The Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, abolished the Spring register and left us with only one register a year, that of the Autumn, but it reduced the qualifying period from six months to three, which was an improvement. The Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act, 1928, finally completed the enfranchisement of women and gave the vote to women between the ages of 21 and 30, which had hitherto been denied, and women got the Parliamentary and the local government franchise on the same terms and within the same age limits as men.
In 1929 there was another Speaker's Conference, which arose out of the Parliamentary situation of that day, with a minority Labour Government. In that case three Members of the House of Lords and 18 Members of the House of Commons were selected by Mr. Speaker, in relation to the party representation in the House of Commons. The main issue


then was whether there should be Proportional Representation or the alternative vote, but that Conference was abortive and no agreed conclusions arose out of it There were other matters under consideration, such as the use of motor-cars, and as far as I can tell there was disagreement about nearly everything. This was a Conference which agreed about nothing, and consequently no action arose out of it.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: There was a majority resolution.

Mr. Morrison: That may be, but I suspect that the majority was of such a character that it was difficult for His Majesty's Government to take action.

Sir H. Holdsworth: An alternative Bill was presented by the Government later.

Mr. Morrison: That may be. I will not go into all the hidden matters, but at any rate I am right in saying that no legislative action arose.

Sir Percy Harris: Was not a Bill presented?

Mr. Morrison: The presentation of a Bill is not legislative action, but an attempt at legislative action, and nothing came of this. I would not enter into a dispute with my right hon. Friend unwittingly, but it was not action. Nothing happened, and the electoral law remained as it was. Many hon. Members urged before the out-break of war that redistribution should be prepared for in view of the admitted anomalies which existed in many parts of the country. This has happened partly owing to the transfers of industry before the war, and partly owing to slum clearance and other housing operations, and we agree that there is a case, which cannot be disputed, for the consideration of the problem of redistribution.
There were efforts on the part of hon. Members in various parties, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and others, to secure an opportunity for the discussion of electoral reform and the setting up of a Speaker's Conference, and I gave undertakings on behalf of the Government that there should be an opportunity for discussion of electoral reform. I gave those undertakings as far back as 1940, repeated them in 1941,

repeated them again in 1942, and made a firm promise in 1943—and here we are. It indicates how admirably His Majesty's Government carry out their pledges, pledges not only made once but made repetitively over a period of years. But it was necessary, before the various matters came to the stage of practical consideration, to get expert advice on the question of the machinery of elections, and there was set up under the chairmanship of the. Registrar-General, who, I think hon. Members will agree, was a very competent and able chairman, to whom they and I are indebted, a Departmental Committee on electoral machinery to consider electoral registration and the technical problems of redistribution. I should like to say how grateful I am to the members of that Committee for their admirable work and the advice which they gave.
We have already implemented the Report of that Departmental Committee so far as electoral registration is concerned. Their recommendations have been embodied in the Parliament (Elections and Meetings) Act of 1943. The second part, with regard to the redistribution of seats, has not yet been dealt with. This matter has to be considered in two parts: first the machinery and secondly the policy, that is to say, the directions to be given to the boundary commissioners as to the principles upon which they should act. Up to now it has been the case that redistribution has come along when the anomalies were sufficiently great—but not always then—and there was a sufficient degree of Parliamentary pressure and sufficient Parliamentary time to consider the problem. It has been a rather accidental and chaotic method, and the Departmental Committee recommended that there should be a permanent body of boundary commissioners. That does not mean a permanent body of fully paid people, but merely—and I think they were quite wise and sensible about this—certain designated officers in the Government service who would be constituted a boundary commission and who would deliberate from time to time, as and when expedient and necessary, and, for the rest, would get on with their work in relation to their functions in the Government service. By that means we should have in existence a body which, always subject to Parliamentary directions and Parliamentary approval and


control, could review the electorate from time to time and make recommendations about redistribution. It clearly is not desirable that they should play about with the constituencies every other six months, but it is desirable that, instead of the whole mechanism of an active redistribution having to be started by some Government when it finds time or wants to do it, there should be a body observing the movements of population and from time to time, not too frequently, indicating to the Government that there was a primâ facie case for redistribution, in which case the Government would come to the House and consult the House, and then the machine could run.

Major Petherick: Was it the intention that the boundary commissioners should keep areas and constituencies under constant review, or was it the intention that they should at certain fixed periods, say five or ten years, examine those boundaries?

Mr. Morrison: I should think it was a bit of both. It would not be desirable that they should be sitting constantly. The Registrar-General's Department is aware of the movements of the population and would call attention to them, or they would ask for a report and, if there was a primâ facie case, would consider whether there was a real case for action and make recommendations to the Government. That seems to be the sensible machinery for handling the matter.

Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any reason why we should not have redistribution automatically in every Parliament, as they do in some of the Dominions?

Mr. Morrison: That will always be in the hands of the House and the Government of the day. I am not disposed to think there ought to be fixed periods when redistribution must take place. The question ought to be examined factually from time to time to see how strong the primâ facie case for redistribution is. The Government, subject to any views Mr. Speaker's Conference may have, are disposed to think that is a right recommendation. We ourselves approve the recommendation of the Departmental Committee.
The next point is the policy, and—this is the real essence of the matter—the

policy has to be embodied in directions to the boundary commissioners. Here one bets into all sorts of difficulties. I am sure it would be the wish of all parties in the House that when redistribution takes place it should be made fairly and equitably. As Home Secretary it is certainly my duty to be fair and impartial about the matter, but it is a tricky business. You can make a decision or give directions that may involve serious political repercussions which, maybe, you have not thought of or on the other hand they may involve such repercussions politically on one political party or another that the Home Secretary may be suspected. In any case, he is bound to be in an unhappy position, and if it can be avoided I do not think it is desirable that the principles of redistribution should be settled either directly by the Government or individually by any Minister of the Crown. Therefore, while I am not sure that it will come off, I hope myself that the Speaker's Conference, which will represent all political parties as far as practicable, will itself agree on the principles of redistribution, and the directions to the boundary commissioners, and if they do I shall be very grateful. It will save me a nasty job, an invidious job, and I think it is the way it should be done. The political parties should get round the table under Mr. Speaker and try amicably and fairly to settle the principles on which they should act. That is the way in which we propose that this matter should be handled.
Of course, legislation will have to follow to set up this standing machinery and to embody the directions which will be given to the boundary commissioners in deciding the various matters which are appropriate for their consideration. These principles will have to be carefuly considered. It does not follow that the principles decided upon in 1918 are necessarily appropriate for to-day, and it will be for the Speaker's Conference fairly and with a fresh mind to consider all those problems, but I think that by and large there will be acceptance in the House for the principle—as to which there can be a great deal of argument, and I have no doubt that hon. Members who are supporters of Proportional Representation will make the point—that each vote should as far as practicable command an equal share of Parliamentary representation, but even this is, of course, affected by other considerations, especially where in sparsely populated areas strict


adherence to a fixed standard would result in constituencies of an unmanageable size. There are other considerations, such as administrative areas, county boundaries, municipal boundaries, which will call for consideration; and, therefore, whilst we aim at equal constituencies, it may be we shall not achieve that end in all respects.
The Conference will have difficulties. These are some of the problems it will have to consider. Population movements during the war make it hard to assess the population distribution after the war. Let us not underestimate that. It is not going to be an easy business to settle. I would give two instances which will present the Speaker's Conference with some hard thought. One is the case of what was a rural county Division in which a Royal Ordnance factory may have been built, possibly employing 20,000 people, all living more or less round about or as near as they can to it. One of the issues the Speaker's Conference will have to consider will be, Are those people going to settle there, or is the factory going to remain there and in action; or may it be that after the war the factory may be closed and the labour dispersed? In that case should they add that 20,000 factor to that constituency or ignore it? It is a nice one. I do not know the answer.
Another instance may be that of a heavily-bombed constituency in the East End of London with, perhaps, half, or more than half, of the electorate scattered about because their houses have gone, and further there will have been movements and transfers of labour under the directions of the Minister of Labour. You may have a constituency, you have indeed got them in the East End of London, and I dare-say in other parts of the country, in which a whole mass of the electorate have had to go out because their houses were destroyed. The electorate may be reduced to a half or even a third what it was pre-war. What are you to say? Are you to say this loss is permanent and therefore this constituency should be merged in the next one, or to say that these people will come back? They like their borough and a lot of them will. That is another nice one for the boundary commissioners and I wish them all good fortune and luck in studying these problems. I say these things not with a view of expressing any opinion or as a declaration of policy, but only to show

that in the circumstances brought about by the war redistribution is easier said than done.

Sir Reginald Blair: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the anomalies in the East End of London existed long before the war started?

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree. There was a decrease in the electorate in the County of London, not only in the East End, but in some other parts. On the other hand, there are some enormous constituencies and I entirely agree that a prima facie case for redistribution was well established before the war broke out. All I am saying now is that the war itself has added to the complexity of the problems with which Mr. Speaker's Conference will be faced.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not obvious from the examples which the right hon. Gentleman has given, that the Speaker's Conference will be in very great difficulty unless they consider this question of redistribution in relation to the Government policy of post-war reconstruction?

Mr. Morrison: There will certainly be difficulties, and, having uttered that note of warning, as far as the Government are concerned and, indeed, as far as I am concerned, the case for redistribution does not need to be argued. The case is strong and the Conference may be sure it will have sympathetic consideration by His Majesty's Government.
Another point that the Conference will have to consider is the future of the two-Member divisions—whether these double-barrelled constituencies should be continued or not. There are now 11 two-Member boroughs. The Conference will also have to consider whether constituencies should be redistributed on the basis of population, or on the basis of electorate, and it may be that they will come to the conclusion that we must move from the population basis of 1918 to an electorate basis, for it will be easier to know what the electorate is under our national registration machinery than to know what is the population. There is something to be said for the view that the electorate is more important in this respect than the population. That, again, is a matter for the Conference to decide. The Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, will, of course, be very


helpful in providing information on the matter. Other matters which may well come before the Conference—and it is for the members themselves to decide upon the agenda—are some of those which were considered in 1929, relating to the reform of the franchise, both Parliamentary and local government, costs and conduct of elections and methods of elections. It is desirable, and I am sure the House will agree, that the members should seek the greatest common measure of agreement. The more they can agree, the fewer minority reports there are, and the fewer conflicts there are, the greater the service they will render to the House and to the Government, and I am sure that will be the spirit in which hon. Members who are members of the Conference will proceed.
We have given consideration to the terms of reference of the Conference, but the terms which we have drafted are not necessarily final, and we will consider them again in the light of this Debate. I will give them as a guide to the House, because I think the House has a right to know the mind of the Government on the terms of reference. But by all means let hon. Members make observations and suggestions and we will consider them before they are finally settled.

Sir P. Harris: Is it the Government's intention to make the terms of reference as broad as possible?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend will see that the terms are quite wide. I myself should not be disposed to sympathise with attempts to eliminate substantial subjects from the consideration of the Conference, and that is the view of the Government on the point. The draft terms of reference are these:
To examine, and if possible submit agreed Resolutions, on the following matters:—

(a) Redistribution of seats.
(b) Reform of franchise (both Parliamentary and local government).
(c) Conduct and costs of Parliamentary elections.
(d) Methods of election."

I have already dealt with the first point—the redistribution of seats—and, if the Conference approves of the machinery proposals of the departmental committee, then the matter before it will be the principles to govern the directions to the boundary commissioners. Reform of the franchise would include consideration of the business premises vote, the university

vote, and the assimilation of the Parliamentary and the local government franchise. Paragraph (c), as to the conduct and cost of the elections, would include the activities of outside agencies, the use of motor cars, the maximum expenditure of candidates and the amount of deposit, but this does not exclude other things from consideration. Paragraph (d), methods of election, would include proposals such as Proportional Representation and the alternative vote, but the list, as I have said, is not exhaustive.
With regard to Proportional Representation and the alternative vote, it would not be right for me to express any Ministerial opinion about their merits. I think it can be said that whatever may have been the case in the days of Gladstone, who made some observations on the point—and who confessed that he did not understand the matter very well—owing to extensive propaganda and, indeed, to experience in a number of ways of Proportional Representation, hon. Members in all parts of the House understand the proposal pretty well. I think that the Proportional Representation Society, whose most persuasive secretary is an admirable propagandist, who certainly loses no opportunity to expound the doctrine, have helped people to understand it very much better than in earlier days. Therefore, there should be no difficulty in discussing that subject and coming to conclusions. Many people have opinions about it already. I have opinions myself, which I expressed in 1924, but I would not venture to expound them to-day. It is much easier to argue about the subject now, because it is established how the system works and there is a basis of machinery.
When Mr. Gladstone spoke in this House in reply to Mr. Leonard Courtney who was, perhaps, the pioneer of Proportional Representation, he confessed his inability to grasp the mathematics and essentials of the proposal. This was in 1885, and he said, very frankly and modestly:
My hon. Friend has addressed the House with, an ability which never fails him, and with a fervour and sincerity of enthusiasm which has inspired life into what I might almost call, but for the effect of his speech, an army of dry bones. But my hon. Friend made a remark of which I acknowledge justice in regard to my own speeches on this subject. Of those speeches he said he found no traces there of an extensive studying of the


electoral systems of other countries, or of the application of a system or science of comparative politics to the elucidation of this subject. Sir, that is perfectly just, and I can tell my hon. Friends that I am quite conscious of my inability to grapple with details as in former years I might have been in some degree perhaps confident to do.
There were cries of "No, no,"—the "grand old man" was much admired—and he went on:
I beg pardon. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friends who decline to admit: that inability, but I am too conscious of it, and the record of nature and lapse of time are facts too stubborn to be confuted even by the most kind and indulgent partiality. I should not have arisen to enter into this debate—I should have left it, as I proposed to leave the general discussion of the Bill, to other and younger and abler men—had it not been for the personal portions of the speech of my hon. Friend.
Much has taken place since then and I think there is a much wider knowledge of the Proportional Representation proposals.
With regard to the timing of the various items on the agenda of the Speaker's Conference it is proposed that if the Conference agree, the question of redistribution should receive prior consideration. If redistribution is to take place, then the sooner it starts the better, because there is not much time to spare and a great deal will have to be done, and we will indicate to the Conference that redistribution is of particular urgency. The next question is whether methods of election such as Proportional Representation affect redistribution. It can be argued both ways, but if the Speaker's Conference comes to the conclusion that the adoption of a system of election such as Proportional Representation would have implications on redistribution, then we would ask that that too should be considered in the early stages of the Conference. The next subject that we would like to be dealt with early is the proposal indicated by the departmental committee that there should be a merging of the Parliamentary and local government franchise, because if the existing system continues, then that affects the date of resuming municipal elections. It is clear that we cannot have elections under the existing local government franchise until we have the man-power and the time to make a special register. If the Speaker's Conference recommends that there should be a merging of the Parliamentary and local government franchises, then the date of the municipal elections can be accelerated because the register will exist in the form of the Parliamentary register. We,

therefore, ask the Speaker's Conference to give early consideration to that matter as well.
As to the procedure for setting up the Conference, we propose that it shall be substantially as it was before. We propose that a letter should be sent by the Prime Minister to you, Mr. Speaker, asking you to preside over the Conference. I am sure the House will be glad to know, Sir, that, unofficially, I have already approached you, and that you are willing to preside. I am sure we are all extremely grateful. I have only done the unofficial part. The Prime Minister will do the official part and the letter will draw attention to the desirability of early reports on the subjects I have just indicated.
I think both the object and the method of handling these difficult and possibly contentious matters, will commend themselves to the House. It is only right that in this Session of Parliament, in which we hope to devote ourselves to problems of reconstruction of one sort or another—and I hope it will be a prolific Session—we should be preparing also for the future Parliament which the country at some appropriate time will elect.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: Is it intended that membership of the Conference should be constituted as in 1916 or as in 1929?

Mr. Morrison: There were peers in both cases. This is, of course, a matter for Mr. Speaker, but it would be appropriate that their Lordships' House should have representation upon the Conference.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. gentleman has made a rather serious constitutional point. If their Lordships' House do not agree with the views of this House on this matter, this House, under the Parliament Act, can pass a Bill over their heads.

Mr. Morrison: On the other hand, it would mean the postponement of any legislative action. Whatever views Members may have about the House of Lords it is appropriate that the precedents followed both by the Labour Government in 1929 and by the Coalition Government in 1916 should be followed, but the composition of the Conference will be a matter for Mr. Speaker. While Parliament is preparing for future electoral arrangements, I am sure that the House will agree when I


express the hope that the people themselves are also preparing their minds and thoughts for the great responsibilities which they will have to face as citizens at future elections. I hope they will recognise that Governments alone cannot do everything, but that the people must play their part in making their contribution to political discussions and wise electoral results.
Our problem will be simpler than the problems of many other nations. The problems that will face the governments of occupied territories will be very complex and serious, and we may be thankful that those problems will not face us. It is as well, of course, that from time to time we should overhaul our machinery on matters that are fundamental in a democratic community. It is probable that this Conference will not lead to legislation of the magnitude of that of 1918, because the issues which were dealt with then have left a smaller and somewhat more modest agenda than was the case in the last war. We have now emerged as a great democracy with universal franchise, and a modern electoral organisation, and the issues, therefore, are not so great.
I am sure the House will agree that a Speaker's Conference is the right way to deal with this matter. It is interesting to note that it is a comparatively modern device. The only previous tines when it has been used were, I think, in 1929 and 1916. I have read the speech of Mr. Walter Long, as he then was, in which he proposed the setting up of the Speaker's Conference on electoral reform in 1916. It looks to me as if he went about the proposal very gingerly, in view of the rather long single sentence which I will quote, and the care with which he moved along step by step to see whether he was taking the House with him. In this very long sentence he said:
I myself believe that if we agreed amongst ourselves, and the Government offered any assistance which they could, and which, I believe, they would gladly do, to set up—I will not say a Committee, because that is not exactly what I mean—hut a representative Conference, not only of parties, but of groups, a Conference which would really represent opinion on these three subjects: electoral reform, revision of your electoral power when you have got it, and registration, I believe—and I do not speak altogether out of books—that such a Conference of earnest men, holding strong views, bitterly opposed to each other, if they were face to face with these difficulties, when

we are all longing with a great longing to see something of a better prospect for our country in the future, would produce an agreed system for all three questions upon which the great mass of opinion of the people of this country could come together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1916; col. 1949, Vol. 85.]
It is clear that he was being careful as he went along. What he said was, however, acceptable to the House.
I hope very much that the deliberations of the Conference will be successful and amicable. We all hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will accept the invitation to preside over the proceedings. We have the utmost confidence in your impartiality, tact, judgment and knowledge. I am sorry to have to propose this addition to your already onerous duties, but we shall be very grateful if you undertake it. The House will, I am sure, wish you and the members of the Conference success in your deliberations. I think I have covered the ground and I hope that the general indication of procedure which I have explained will comend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the reform of the electoral system in regard to this House and to the fact that Members of the House of Peers may sit on the Commission. Will any consideration be given to the reform, either the abolition or the reconstruction of that House and its method of composition?

Mr. Morrison: These matters would not come within the scope of the Speaker's Conference. As to the number of Peers on the Conference, I have said that the appointment of any Peers and if so the number will be a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, while it is expected that the Conference will be composed of representatives of all parties in the House, it is hoped that no members will go with final and fixed decisions to the Conference, but that they will go with the intention of achieving the best results?

Mr. Morrison: It is clear that hon. Members must listen to each other in the discussions in the Conference, as we do here in Debate, but this is a matter in which it would be rather unreal not to expect Members to have opinions before they start talking.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister said that all parties would be represented in the Conference. Then he added, "as far as practicable." Can he tell us what he means by that?

Mr. Morrison: That had better be argued with Mr. Speaker through the usual channels.

Sir Herbert Williams: I cordially support the Motion which has been admirably proposed by the Home Secretary. His objective and impartial description of the problem will be helpful to everyone. I also heartily endorse what he said about you, Mr. Speaker. We know that you are impartial and we are equally certain that if you accept the invitation, you will be very busy. With regard to redistribution, about which I wish to say more than on other matters, I think that we would be unwise to come down to precise details. What we want to do is to try to give broad hints to the Speaker's Conference. In other words, we want to help them in their approach to the problem and in their objective. I am satisfied of one thing which we can hope for, and that is that none of the parties will try to gerrymander. Every party that has tried to gerrymander in the past has failed, and the other side has won the election. It is extraordinary that the results of a reform of the franchise are nearly always opposite to what the reformers anticipated. There is something curious about our people in that the more you try to regiment them the less you succeed. I hope, therefore, that those who go on the Conference will try to get what will give us the best results for the nation, irrespective of party. I am not suggesting that people should go on the Conference entirely in white sheets, because that would be silly, but, in the main, I do not believe that any party will get an advantage by trying to shape things in a way that will suit them at the next election, for they might not suit them at elections thereafter. We have seen many examples of that.
The Home Secretary has admitted the case for redistribution. It is an overwhelming case. That one person should represent ten times as many people as another is really a farce. We had Rom-ford as the outstanding argument prior to 1918, but it is now No. 2. Hendon is No. 1. Romford was broken up into four

after the last election and it has now become the second largest constituency represented by one Member. Although the case for redistribution is overwhelming, do not let us be too arithmetical. I am not one who wants to see the country broken up into precisely equal squares of population. That would be wrong in every way, because, after all, a constituency is a community. We all get many letters from our constituents, and it is curious how many start off with the same words, and they are words which please me. These letters begin, "As a member of your constituency." This I interpret as, "As a member of the Club of which you are President." That is the opening that I like. When I read it I feel that the writer and I are associated in a joint enterprise, irrespective of whether he voted for me or not. I am not concerned about that because once we are elected we represent our constituents. The public outside think that being a Member of Parliament is a political job and a controversial job, but nine-tenths of our work has nothing to do with controversial politics. It is looking after the troubles of the great mass of the people in our constituencies. It is that human aspect of politics which is so attractive. I am always annoyed with newspapers which say that M.P.'s have had a three weeks' holiday. There is no holiday for M.P.'s, whether the House is sitting or not, and it is time the newspapers stopped this silly misleading talk about what are the duties of Members of Parliament. What is even worse, these silly stories are repeated by journalists who know that what they say does not represent the life of an M.P. I make this protest because this seems to be a good opportunity to do it.
We must take into consideration the community life of our constituencies. On looking through the list of constituencies I see that there are quite a number with electorates of about 35,000, but it would be a mistake to arrange constituencies according to arithmetical equality. They are communities with their own life, their own football teams. The team of one of them may be in the First Division of the League, and that makes an element in the community. If the team wins the English Cup it is the duty of the M.P. to receive them, together with the brass band and the mayor. It is all part of the communal


life of our country and we should not forget it. We must take the population into account, of course, but it must not be the determining factor. Questions of geography must also be taken into account. The Orkney and Shetland Islands could not possibly be incorporated with a mainland constituency. There is a constituency in Scotland which has an area of 7,000 square miles, which is about one-twentieth of the area of the United Kingdom. Obviously a constituency like that, with a relatively small electorate, has to be kept together because, although it is a great area, it is nevertheless a community inhabited by a certain number of clans, and they have a communal life. We have to take into account local government boundaries. The boundaries of Parliamentary and municipal areas should as far as possible be coterminous. It is sometimes forgotten that Members of Parliament are human beings. (HON. MEMBERS: "No.") Yes, it is true. A human being has a certain limited capacity for work, and a constituency is entitled to be represented in the sense of being visited by the Member. That is a factor which has to be taken into account.
All these things must be borne in mind when the Boundary Commission gets to work. I am glad to hear from the Home Secretary that the Government have come down in favour of a permanent electoral commission. I pat myself on the back, for it is 30 years since I first started to advocate this. I incorporated it in a private Bill in 1933, and I was delighted when the Registrar-General's Committee virtually adopted my proposal of eight or nine years ago. Therefore, on that issue I feel delighted that I have at last succeeded in converting my right hon. Friend and his distinguished colleagues to a point of view which I have held for 30 years. It shows how difficult it is for a progressive minded person to reform a reactionary, but something happens eventually, if you only go on trying long enough.
The redistribution problem is much simpler than it would appear at first sight. A very great part of the country will not be disturbed in the slightest, whether the redistribution is complete or only partial. I use those terms because the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the uncertain position of the

future population in many areas. There may be a tenth of the population in the Forces. I am not disclosing any information to the enemy in giving that figure, because I do not know the facts, and am only making a guess. There is a smaller percentage which has been directed away from home by the Minister of Labour and a larger number who have directed themselves away, as a result of the bombing activities of the enemy. So future populations are unknown in a great many cases, even to any degree of approximation, but that does not alter the broad problem, which is brought about by the growth of population in the outer suburbs of great cities, and more particularly of London. Look at the outer suburbs of London. Take, for example, Surrey. Probably Wimbledon and Epsom will want some attention. I have not looked up the figures, but in Middlesex the same is true of Hendon and Harrow and probably of Twickenham.

Mr. Keeling: Certainly.

Sir H. Williams: And also Uxbridge. In Essex, Romford is outstanding and, I think, Ilford. Epping, of course, comes at once to mind. If we halve the Prime Minister's constituency it will give him a little more time for his duties as Minister of Defence. In Hertfordshire, the first constituency to be dealt with would probably be that which was represented by Sir Francis Fremantle. In Kent, Bromley looks as though it was ripe for some operation. All round London, some 20 new constituencies will be created. Even my old borough of Croydon will probably get three Members. Part of our municipality is outside the Parliamentary area. The borough looks ripe for three Members and I shall have a very much larger area: [An HON. MEMBER: "If you are elected."] I shall get in easily. I shall be justified then in joining the National Farmers' Union.
If we are to do all this, we must not be tied down by the thought that there is anything magic about having 615 Members. There is no rigidity about the number. I have been looking through the list of the redistributions since 1832 and I found very marked changes. In 1885, which I think was the last redistribution prior to 1918, the membership was fixed at 670 and that figure stood until the last redistribution but one, when it


was made 707. It was never effectively 707, because the Countess Marciewicz never came over, so we never saw our first woman Member of Parliament. At the last redistribution it was made 615. If the redistribution is to be carried through with the minimum of friction—the first post-war redistribution—we shall have to assume that there will be an addition to the total membership. Otherwise certain constituencies may have to be wound up, in the sense of being amalgamated with others. There will be a measure of uncertainty as to the future population which would make one hold back in some places.
We now get into the area of nationalism. As far as I know, there are no binding treaties as to the relative shares in this Chamber of the four countries which make up the United Kingdom, that is to say, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It seems, from a study of the figures, quite certain that there will be some addition to the English membership, provided that the principles that I have in mind are carried out. I think there will be an addition of 20. That is my guess. In Scotland, I think there will be no change. There looks to be only one constituency which ought to be subdivided. There ale a number of rather small Scottish constituencies, most of which ought to be left undisturbed. Wales, again, largely no disturbance, except, I think in Flintshire, where there ought to be two Members instead of one. In Cardiff I think there should be some rearrangement.
There is one extraordinary position in Wales which I think we shall leave alone, although it ought later to be dealt with, and that is what I may call the oases of Carnarvonshire. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) represents a most strange constituency. It starts off with Llandudno. Then you pass through an area of quarries, represented by his son-in-law once removed. Then you get to the historic and ancient city of Bangor, and then to another part, represented by the other member of the family. Then you go on to Carnarvon, with its castle, of which I think the right hon. Gentleman is Constable, although I do not know what the duties are. I do not think they include firewatching. Then you come to another town, the name of which I have

forgotten. The whole thing is spread over some 50 miles, and in between are areas of the county. Logically, you should cut the county in two, but I do not think we should do that as long as the right hon. Gentleman wants to remain the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. We shall not bisect or dissect his constituency. I am reminded of Anglesey, but that is a coherent and complete county and it ought to remain for all time. It is a strange little place, which has put itself on the map by inventing a very long title for its first railway station. The title describes the charm and beauty of the village, including two churches. Perhaps the hon. Lady who represents it will tell us the name of it. I believe that Llanfair P.G. is the official abbreviation.
I come to the controversial issue of Proportional Representation. I am one of the few people who have been twisted out of a seat in Parliament by Proportional Representation. It did not bias my mind, because I did not like Proportional Representation before. Anyone who examines the detailed results of the 1918 election for the Combined English Universities will find a curious situation. Mr. H. L. A. Fisher got an enormous vote. He had passed his Education Act, raising the pay of teachers and giving them pensions. There is a very large number of teachers in this constituency, and naturally he got a very big vote. There were also two Conservative candidates and a Labour candidate. I was one of the Conservatives and the late Lord Conway was the other. I had more Conservative votes than Lord Conway and more official Labour support, but I was not elected.

Mr. Molson: Does the hon. Member suggest that the electors were wrong?

Sir H. Williams: I do not, but one would think that under Proportional Representation, the object of which is to ensure that each party has a proper show, Conservatives would be able to decide what Member they were going to have. It is probably just as well that I did not represent an academic place of learning, because it is so dull. That constituency is now represented by two friends of mine. Let us look at them, in the political sense. They are both Liberals. They call themselves Independents. They sit for a constituency


where, judging by a series of elections, more than half the voters are Conservatives and substantially more than a quarter belong to the Labour Party. The result, under Proportional Representation, is that two Liberals calling themselves Independents sit for a constituency where three-quarters of the voters belong to another party.

Mr. E. Harvey: May I point out that one of the present Independent Members was returned at a by-election and that at the last General Election one Member returned was an Independent and the other was a Conservative?

Sir H. Williams: I agree that one Member was elected at a by-election. The circumstances at that time were a little unusual but it was a straight vote for the moment. I am just describing its present representation. I hope that Universities will continue on a basis of Proportional Representation, which is easy to run, because the electors vote by post. They are supposed to be a reasonable and well-educated crowd. There is no secret vote. It is all very pleasant. As the papers come in you can look at them and find out how everybody votes. I remember that one professor sent me a most hearty letter of support, so I looked at his ballot paper when it came in. No. 1 on his paper was somebody to whom he had never said a word. His No. 2 was somebody whose manifesto he had signed, but he had put me, to whom he had written that hearty letter of support, as No. 3. So professors are not as honest as they might be.
Nevertheless, the University Members bring to this House a great wealth of knowledge and experience which should not be done away with. I think that Parliament has seldom had a better team of University Members, with scholarship, poetry, imagination, zoology; Liberals sitting as Independents, Conservatives sitting as Independents, Labour fellows of every variety, and a Welshman who spells his name in Welsh style instead of the accustomed English style. They are a good team, and I say that without joking. They play a first-class part in the work of this House, one as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one who is generally in New York or Washington and runs ships. He represents the home of lost causes, Oxford University. There is another

Liberal who is here as an Independent. The only thing I do not like about the University representation is the dishonest effect it appears to have on the politics of its Members, because none of them comes out in his true colours. They all describe themselves as something different from what they are, including the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) who is at heart a Tory but sits in this House as an Independent.
So far as ordinary people are concerned, give me enough money and a system of Proportional Representation, and I will elect any people you wish. The system is more open to corruption than any system I know. All you have to do is to subsidise a number of Independent candidates, collecting all the crank votes, and advise all the people to give their second preference to yourself.

Sir H. Holdsworth: Cannot that be done under the present system?

Sir H. Williams: No. There is no law which forbids a candidate to pay his opponent's election expenses, and so to corrupt the electorate; but there is no advantage in doing so. The only purpose of if is to transfer votes that are against you and that might be put as number two on somebody else's paper. The intolerable thing about it is the effect it has upon the relationship between the Member and his constituency. In my case I should have to represent North Croydon, South Croydon and probably East Surrey as well. There are 200,000 electors in that area and if they had to have four Members of Parliament it would not diminish the work which each Member had to do, such as looking after the public engagements and the correspondence of a quadruple constituency. There would be no sense of unity between each Member and the constituency. Proportional Representation only attracts those who for the moment think they can get in, and that without it they will lose their seats. That is the reason why the Liberal Party at the moment support Proportional Representation. Without it they will lose their seats. It is pure gerrymandering, and so far as I can I shall do all I can to resist it.
I do not think that the business vote should be abolished. Superficially it seems wrong that a person should have more than one vote, but it really affects only a few constituencies—the City of


London and the central Divisions of one or two of our large cities. The conduct of industry by whoever conducts it is an important factor in our national life, and it seems desirable that the point in view of those responsible for the conduct of industry should have some kind of show—not an outstanding show. The business vote is not the vote of big business. Big business is in big limited companies, and they are not enfranchised under the business vote. The business enfranchised is that of the solicitor or that of the modest-sized shop-keeper and small shop-keeper. There are a number of people like those who work in the City of London and live outside and who work in the Central Division of Manchester and live in the suburbs. These moderate business men and small business men who are enfranchised do give to a few constituencies a weight of influence of a right kind.
After all, the trade union movement to-day is highly organised. There is a weight of influence in the House speaking from the point of view of the employee. I do not think it is unreasonable that there should be a special weight of influence, though smaller, speaking on behalf of those who are employers. There is nothing wrong in interests being able to put forward their points of view. To remove the business vote would destroy these constituencies, because in some cases the constituency left would be so small that it would have to go. As it is right that the Miners' Federation, through their branches up and down the country, should take steps to provide in this House a substantial miners' vote to defend and safeguard a specific vested interest—let us be quite honest about it—it is not unreasonable that, to a very much smaller extent, what might be called the vested interests of the employer class should have one or two constituencies where it has special weight.

Mr. G. Strauss: Does the hon. Member consider that the weight of vested interests and the viewpoint of employers are not adequately represented in this House under the present system?

Sir H. Williams: It is true there are a number of employers who are Members of the House, but to say "Speaking on behalf of those I represent, the voters of the City of London" is a different thing

from an individual getting up as a cotton manufacturer or some other employer. In the former case the Member has an authoritative voice, he is a collective voice, the same as a man who represents a mining constituency and can say, for example, "Speaking on behalf of the miners of Durham."

Mr. Bowles: Is the hon. Member aware that it is possible for a man and his wife to have between them eight votes?

Sir H. Williams: Between us my wife and I have six votes, but we can use only four. A man and wife with eight votes can use only four. In a General Election one can vote in respect of one's residence and in respect of one's business premises, if they are in a different constituency, or, alternatively, if one is a university graduate one can vote for the university, but one cannot vote both in respect of the university and the business premises. If a by-election comes along one can vote in any place in which one is registered. Surely that is not an unreasonable thing, that if a man has a definite interest in more than one place he should be allowed to use such influence as he has got in a by-election. Do not let it be thought that plural voting affects only Conservatives. There are plural voters in all parties. I do not see any reason why it should be done away with. I think there is a first class case for it to be continued. It affects only a few constituencies. It would be a farce, much as I like policemen, much as I respect charwomen; that they should be the only electors in the City of London.
I think we should reduce the costs of elections. Quite honestly, I want to see the costs of elections very much reduced. I know that a great deal of election expenditure in the past has been sheer waste from the point of view of any electoral dividend there has been. There is a tradition of extravagance. Elections bring out hangers-on who think they should be paid a lot for doing little. If we were stopped from being able to pay them this type would vanish. There is a certain type of trader who thinks election time is a time to get a little trade; booking fees for halls are at a high rate. If we cut down the cost all that will go, and we shall at the same time open the door of opportunity to a great number of people who have been debarred from seeking service in this


House unless they had to take the pay of their own party up to a point. The less people are subsidised by their own party machine the better. I must pay this tribute to the Conservative Party machine. I have, in my earlier elections, had some help, but never have I found them hinder me in the slightest degree in the House. The Conservative Party is in this respect, I believe, the freest party in this country. I have behaved badly from time to time in criticising my own side, but I have never got into any trouble.
There are some laws against corrupt and illegal practices, which were passed in the days When bribery and corruption were possible because of the limited size of the electorate. Bribery and corruption have been banished, not by good laws, but by big electorates. Nobody can bribe 80,000 electors with his own money. We now bribe at somebody else's expense, by promises of the good laws we shall pass if we are elected. There are under this head offences which are quite trivial but for which the penalties are very heavy. I think these might be overhauled in the light of the completely changed circumstances since they were passed.
On the question of absent voting I think it should be made as easy as possible for people to exercise the franchise. If a person is ill, and by ill I mean temporarily sick or infirm, I do not think he ought to have to go to the polling station. I think there ought to be devised a system of absent voting, not merely by being permanently on the register, but as an absent voter for a particular election. Provided that we must have safeguards against fraud I think registration officers should be much more elastic regarding their powers under "the existing Act." I have always exploited" the existing Act." I live in Westminster, but on the grounds that it might be difficult for me to be at the polling station in Westminster I am registered as an absent voter in Westminster. I have a house just outside the constituency of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). There I am registered as an absent voter, and at the University I am registered as an absent voter. In each case I exercise my right of voting by post. I find it very convenient. [Interruption.] If by-elections were held at all three I could use all three

votes. It is a convenience that I want to be widely extended. Make it easier for people. We should not then have the necessity for vast numbers of motor cars to carry our opponents to the poll, especially when my right hon. Friend is organising the opposition. He always told them "Ride in the Tory cars and vote against them." If we can do away with cars my right hon. Friend's supporters will have to walk at the next L.C.C. election.
Though I have followed the right hon. Gentleman, who, in one sense, was speaking for the Government and speaking impartially, I cannot claim to be speaking for the Conservative Party, but I believe from the discussions I have had with various people that the points of view I have put forward to-day represent the average point of view of the Conservatives in this House. I do not believe that this Conference should involve a wrangle at all. I believe there is sufficient community of outlook in all parties in the House for the Conference to come to its conclusions easily, except perhaps in connection with Proportional Representation. On other matters I think the Conference should have an easy passage and I wish it well.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: I like to think we can all agree on one point, that we all welcome the appointment of the Speaker's Conference. I wish to make one or two comments on the Home Secretary's speech. First of all, with regard to the terms of reference, I hope those terms will be drawn as widely as ever possible. I sat on the Departmental Committee dealing with electoral machinery, and I do not think I am saying anything that I should not say in mentioning that at the first meeting we had difficulty with the terms of reference. Having also sat on select committees and so on, I think we all have had that experience. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to make the terms as wide as ever possible. The only other reference I want to make is to the quotation he read from Mr. Gladstone. Some of us smiled, because Mr. Gladstone was candid enough to admit in that speech that he did not fully grasp all the details of Proportional Representation. That is not peculiar to 1870, or whenever it was. Many of the Members of the present House to whom I talk have not the slightest idea


what Proportional Representation is, and so many of the people who criticise it are in that position. I shall refer later to a speech I made in 1933 on this very subject, when the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Deputy Prime Minister replied on behalf of the Labour Party and made it quite clear in his speech that he had not the slightest idea of what Proportional Representation meant. Many suggest that the chaos in France was caused by Proportional Representation. The fact is that they have never had it.

Sir H. Williams: I remember being in Paris during one of their General Elections which was conducted under Proportional Representation, not of the precise kind which Mr. Humphreys advocates. There were 20 candidates for one constituency who had a meeting, at which they all spoke.

Sir H. Holdsworth: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. They have never had a system of Proportional Representation. I would like to ask Members of this House whether they would spend a little time really considering what the question is. I wish to refer to one or two things the hon. Member said. He began his speech by saying that he hoped that no party would go into this Conference with the idea of gerrymandering. I say "Amen" to that. We ought to go into that Conference, that is those of us who are asked to serve in it, with the objective view of assuring that when it has reached its conclusions it shall suggest principles and policies that will give the electorate the best system of electoral machinery, machinery that would give effect to the votes cast. I was awfully disappointed when he went on later to charge the Liberal Party with being concerned with gerrymandering. It is not true. Let us be quite frank about this: the Liberal Party has not an adequate representation in this House, according to the votes cast for Liberalism. It is not gerrymandering to ask that there should be a system which gives fair and adequate representation, not merely for Liberal views but for any particular views which the electorate may desire. What right have you to try to compartmentalise minds into Conservative and Labour, or any other? We are supposed in this country to enjoy free speech, free thought, freedom of expression. What right has the hon. Gentleman to suggest

that a party, which believes in its principles and suggests that it is not getting a fair crack of the whip, is gerrymandering?

Sir H. Williams: The point is that the belief in this doctrine arose only when the Liberal Party were the sufferers under the present method.

Sir H. Holdsworth: I agree. I think that the Liberal Party made a great mistake in the past, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman's own party may be in the same position one day. The hon. Gentleman made reference to arithmetical niceties. I agree with him to some extent about that, but, generally speaking, there ought to be arithmetical representation. You have to make provision for such places as the Orkneys and Shetlands and so on, but do not let us draw that out too far. The idea of electing parties is not that each party should get a proper share of the seats, but that each vote should count for something. Let us consider the question of corruption. I have a great regard for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), but he contradicted himself in the latter part of his speech. He said, "If you give me enough money, under Proportional Representation, I will so manipulate the electorate that they will send me back." Later he said, "What has done away with corruption is not good laws but the big electorate." Then he denounces Proportional Representation because it would extend the electorate.

Sir H. Williams: My point is that the large electorate makes it impossible to corrupt the electors, but with Proportional Representation there is no need to corrupt the general body of the electorate, you have merely to corrupt a few candidates.

Sir H. Holdsworth: The hon. Member is contradicting himself again. He pointed out that if a man promised to support him, only under an open ballot could he see whether the man had gone back on his promise. What guarantee has he that the vote would be given in accordance with the promise? All that is mere idle twaddle. I am bound to admit that on this question of Proportional Representation I cannot speak for all the Members who sit on this Bench: some of them do not agree with Proportional Representation.


But in this House some years ago I moved a Motion in these terms:
That, in order to ensure in future Parliaments a greater correspondence between the strength of opinion in the country and representation in the House of Commons, it is desirable to reform the present system of Parliamentary elections."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1933; col. 1725, Vol. 283]
That Motion was defeated. I believe that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), not a single Labour Member voted for it. One or two enlightened Conservatives voted for it, but no Member of the Labour Party; and the present Deputy Prime Minister, who answered for the Labour Party, spent the whole of his speech in denouncing the Liberal Party. He never tackled the merits, or otherwise, of the Motion, but was concerned, like the hon. Member for South Croydon, in denouncing the Liberal Party. The Motion was defeated, but the problem remains. There is no representation in this House corresponding to the votes cast in an election. I want to appeal to the best motives, not to the question of whether this is going to be in favour of the Conservative Party at one election and the Labour Party at another but to see how we can complete the structure of democracy, which is incomplete at the present time. We are members of the oldest Parliamentary body in the world, which is called the Mother of Parliaments. [Interruption.] I am not strictly correct, but I think that for all practical purposes we are. We declare our belief in democracy. We say that we believe in justice. We affirm the right of every man to freedom of thought and freedom of speech. My contention is that these are all empty phrases if after the people have cast their votes in an election, those votes are not reflected in adequate representation in this House. We have had the completion of adult suffrage, the secret ballot, the extension right through of the franchise, and yet a General Election remains almost one of the biggest gambles in this country. I know how boring it is for the House to listen to figures, but I am going to quote several figures, and shall ask what has happened in the elections since we have had adult suffrage. I want to deal with my own county, the greatest of all, Yorkshire.

Mr. Pickthorn: The largest.

Sir H. Holdsworth: Yes. In the 1929 election Labour polled 1,000,000 votes, for which they got 40 seats. Conservatives polled 700,000 votes, and they got 15 seats. Liberals polled 520,000 votes, and they got two seats. The majority of votes were cast against Labour. They were in a minority, so far as Yorkshire was concerned.

Mr. Woodburn: How does the hon. Member know that they were against Labour?

Sir H. Holdsworth: Because the majority voted for the other candidates.

Mr. Woodburn: Can he tell us how the people who voted Liberal would have voted had not a Liberal been there?

Sir H. Holdsworth: Under Proportional Representation the transferable vote would have shown that.

Mr. Woodburn: So the hon. Member's analysis is wrong.

Sir H. Holdsworth: No. There was a greater number cast against Labour than for Labour.

Mr. Woodburn: That is not conclusive.

Sir H. Holdsworth: I think it is. Labour got 40 seats out of 57. In 1931 the Conservative Party polled 1,000,000 votes in Yorkshire, and got 36 seats; the Labour Party polled 800,000, and got seven seats; and the Liberals polled 150,000, and got five seats. The Labour vote dropped by one-fifth, but their seats were reduced from 40 to seven. I am making the point that such a large change in representation with such a small change in voting is a perfect farce. I do not believe that we can use any other word. In 1929 throughout the country Labour had an increase in voting strength that should have given an extra 23 seats. They actually got 138 extra seats. In 1931 the opposite happened. They lost votes which represented a loss of 39 seats, and they actually lost 224 seats. Any of us who sat in the 1931–35 Parliament must recognise that on votes cast the representation of Labour was scandalously low.
I was going to quote the figures for the 1935 election, but I will be content with those. There was not a colossal difference between the total number of votes cast, but there was a tremendous difference in the seats. The Conservatives got


406 and the others the remainder. I am not criticising the Conservatives, but I do not think anyone will challenge the statement that, for many years, Conservatives have been over-represented in this House according to the votes cast, and the point I would like to make to the Conservatives is that the present system may just have the opposite result before many years pass. My view is that large majorities make for weak Governments. It is not good for the country. Large majorities give far too much power to the Executive. I am one of those who think—and I think every hon. Member knows my views—that if you get a majority of a few hundreds you know you can ride roughshod over the rest. It would be a far better House of Commons if we did not have these huge majorities.
There is another point I want to make. We have a very difficult time facing us in the post-war period. I have referred to the speech I made in 1933 in which I said there was a grave danger that the whole economic structure of the country could be changed by a Government having a large majority in this House received from slightly more than one-third of the votes cast in the election. I think that is a dangerous position, whether from the Left or Right, and my own view is that, in this difficult postwar period, we ought to take steps to see that such a thing cannot be.

Sir Granville Gibson: Is it not far more dangerous to have a repetition of what happened between 1929 and 1931, when a small number of the Liberal Party were able to——[Interruption.]

Sir H. Holdsworth: I am perfectly willing to answer that question, but I do not think it is relevant.

Sir G. Gibson: I think it is relevant. Did the hon. Member not say a moment ago that it was dangerous to have exceptionally large majorities? I ask, is it not also dangerous to have a small minority which could sway the Government one way or another?

Sir H. Holdsworth: It is no answer whatever. I agree there was a small minority of that kind and it is a very unsatisfactory position, but that arose out of the present system, not out of Proportional Representation. That is the answer

to that. I make no apology for my views regarding private enterprise. I am absolutely opposed to Socialism. There are very few people in this House who are. What I want to say is that, whether we are under private enterprise or State enterprise, we ought not to be at the mercy of an electoral gamble as to whether one system substitutes the other, as it can do under our present system. I want to make one other point about the minority Members in this House. I believe there were 315 Members in this House in 1929 who were here only representing a minority of the votes cast in their particular constituencies. Well, if we cannot have Proportional Representation, I would accept the alternative vote if I could do away with minority representation. I cannot think it is desirable that any man should sit in this House and not represent a majority of the electors of his own constituency. I know it is argued that people should be compelled by law to vote. I think this is totally wrong, as long as we have the present system.
In many constituencies electors do not vote because they know they cannot make their votes effective, and, in many cases, if men are compelled to vote, very probably, seeing that their own particular candidate has no chance, they will vote, not for the man they want, but against the man they do not want. If we want people to vote we ought to devise a system under which their votes will really count. I agree I am in a hopeless minority about this, but it does not make me any the less enthusiastic, because majorities are usually wrong. I would like to see the Speaker's Conference deal with this question and I would like it to try an experiment, at least. I have one good supporter, the Prime Minister himself. I think we all remember the right hon. Gentleman making a speech in June, 1931, in which he asked—I am paraphrasing him—for an experiment in citizenship in industrial areas, and I beg hon. Members to give serious consideration to the question whether some such experiment should not be made.

Earl Winterton: Will the hon. Member say on what date the speech was made?

Sir H. Holdsworth: On 2nd June, 1931 I may perhaps read the last part:


Under the Proportional Representation scheme, these cities would regain their collective personality, and their Members, of every hue, Liberal, Conservative or Socialist, would speak for the opinions of very large numbers of people forming an integral society. The leading figures in our political life would find at the summit of these great cities far more secure and independent seats than is possible to-day. Our cities would become centres where keen and powerful debates would, as is almost impracticable now, proceed again before an increasingly attentive audience, and the formation of new opinions in these centres would influence thought in the surrounding districts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1931; col. 103, Vol. 253.]
Before answering one or two objections, I want to go back to the question whether it is desirable or not that there should be only two parties in the State. I cannot understand a democracy confined to two parties. It is not a very far step to Hitler. He only went one step forward when he said, "We will have one party." That view is being propagated to-day in this country. There is a certain reverend gentleman—I cannot be sure of his name—who comes from Birmingham and speaks on behalf of a society called, I believe, the Christian Council of the Clergy, of which the Bishop of Bradford is President. He came to Bradford and addressed a Common Wealth meeting. He has written a pamphlet in which he says that true democracy can only be expressed through one party. I do not know how far that is removed from totalitarianism. It is complete totalitarianism, and it is only a qualified totalitarianism which says you shall belong to one of two parties. I want to suggest that, if we really believe in democracy, we shall allow the other man to think as he thinks fit and not as we think. The lack of the personal touch has been mentioned. There is no Member who spends more time in his constituency than I do.

Mr. George Griffiths: Except me.

Sir H. Holdsworth: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) is there every week-end.

Mr. G. Griffiths: And they know it, too.

Sir H. Holdsworth: Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to see that, in the City of Bradford, its four Members could arrange to deal with certain specific areas of the City? It seems to me a futile argument to say that it would destroy

the personal touch, and if I were told that every person in that city were a constituent of mine I would acknowledge it to-day. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Hemsworth receives letters not merely from Hemsworth but from the areas contiguous to it. I am so often told that it would encourage vested interests. I think the present system does that, on both sides of the House. I believe that Proportional Representation, by extending constituencies, will give a far better opportunity to those who are now under the power of vested interests than the present system gives. I was sorry that the Home Secretary to-day made what I think was a mistake. In 1930, there was a conference, presided over by Viscount Ullswater, and it passed a resolution by 13 votes to 8. It was as follows:
Any change in the present system of Parliamentary election should include the adoption of P.R. in the single transferable vote.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think my recollection is right—and I am sure that the hon. Member is the last Member in the House who would wish to state the position unfairly—that the Conservatives voted for the resolution with the express stipulation that it was only on the assumption that some change was necessary and that it was not only a question of P.R.

Sir H. Holdsworth: That is absolutely correct. I agree that that was the interpretation of the promise made by Viscount Ullswater in the other House, when he said that, after threshing it out and expressing different views, they came finally to this resolution. I want to finish with one quotation from the Prime Minister of recent date. On 14th October of last year, in this House, he said:
The Government are fully conscious of the importance of giving attention to all measures designed to secure that whenever there is an appeal to the country—whether at by-elections or at a General Election—the result shall be fully and truly representative of The views of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1943; col. 1047, Vol. 392.]
I trust that, as a result of the deliberations of the Speaker's Conference, the words of the Prime Minister will be implemented and that we may complete the democratic structure begun more than a century ago.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that the. House has listened to the hon. Member


for South Bradford (Sir H. Holdsworth) with interest, as presumably he is speaking generally for the Liberal Party, and has put forward what he thinks is the strongest case that can be made for a change in the electoral system. The House, in listening to that case, will be satisfied that something much stronger must be made out if we are to depart from our well-tried methods. The illogicality of one of his arguments struck me as being specially apparent. He said that in Yorkshire 1,000,000 people voted for the Conservatives, 800,000 for Labour and 500,000 for the Liberals, and he added the Liberals and Conservatives together and said that they were all against Labour. How he could tell that is more than I could understand. He went on to argue that it was a bad thing in elections for people to vote against something, and not for something. While he advocated that the Yorkshire argument should be supported on the basis that certain people were against Labour, he referred to another argument and said that it was a bad principle and that people ought to vote for something. He also criticised the disadvantages of large majorities. I have found from the history of Parliamentary proceedings that there is more discipline in the parties in the House of Commas when there is a small majority than when there is a large majority. It is impossible, when there is a small majority, to have anything but the strictest discipline, because any Division might determine the fate of the party. When there is a large majority, there is much more freedom of discussion and more freedom for Members than could exist normally.

Sir H. Holdsworth: That was not the real point that I was making. It was that the power of the Executive was so tremendous that they could not afford to ignore it.

Mr. Woodburn: I should think that the contrary was the case and that the Executive would have far less power of discipline over Members when there is a large majority than when it is a small majority. The hon. Gentleman said that he was an enthusiastic advocate of private enterprise in everything.

Sir H. Holdsworth: Those are not the words that I used.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member implied the presence on different sides of the House of Members who had qualifications about private enterprise and that he had none. I would like to ask him whether he would put the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in his scope for private enterprise.

Sir H. Holdsworth: The hon. Member is making this like a schoolboys' debate. The answer is obvious.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman must admit that he qualifies his support for private enterprise. Therefore, we are back to the question where private enterprise starts and where it ends. I, speaking on behalf of my hon. Friends, welcome the Government's decision to set up a Conference to examine the question of electoral reform. After the last war democracy suffered great strains throughout the world and, in many countries, completely broke down. All over Europe we have seen dictators arise who have destroyed the basis of the democratic method of conducting government. We have to approach the period of reconstruction and peace. It is wise that we should step forward from the existing circumstances into the new peace era with the knowledge that our electoral and Government machinery is well fitted for work during that period. Therefore I agree with the Minister that the time has come when we should take stock. Democracy has two elements, and this is where the argument to which we have just listened fails. Democracy is not only a question of the machinery of democracy but also a question of whether the people who are working the machinery are democratic. If the people who are working the machinery are not democratic then no machine can make a democracy. There is a legitimate criticism of the large majority that existed between 1931 and the present day; even that majority will admit that. Looking back on these days, there was much too rigid a discipline and much too great a desire to resist anything that was proposed by a minority, and by that they were led into many false trends, and that had a great effect on the lack of preparation for the war.
Democracy has a further essential. In a real democracy the majority must take account of minority opinion. The majority


must agree to reasonable discussion by the minority and take into account what the minority put forward. If the majority is simply to club the minority, that is not democracy. I assume that whatever majority comes to the House of Commons the minority will still have expression. The argument for Proportional Representation put forward by the hon. Member was that it would give expression to minorities in the House of Commons. I have never seen the slightest difficulty in minorities obtaining expression in the House of Commons. There is not a Member who does not at some time or other rise and put some small minority point of view in order to give it expression in this House, even if he does not necessarily agree with it. It is his duty to his constituents to put such views. If the only purpose of elections is to give expression to minority opinions, then every Member in this House is prepared to do his duty in that respect.
We have seen countries where minorities were not allowed to express opinions, and prior to the war there was a tendency in some parts of this country to adopt the same practices as were adopted on the Continent. No doubt, in order to try and suppress minorities, many people turned a very favourable ear to Fascist propaganda, believing it to be the way to crush the growing strength of Socialism on the Continent, and that Socialists might become the major party in this country. There were people who toyed with the idea that some extra-constitutional method might be the best way with which to deal with them. I hope, in view of what has happened on the Continent, that any who toyed with that idea will have surrendered it for good and will be prepared to accept the majority decision, even when it goes against them. The alternative in working any political system is that we must settle disputes either by counting heads or by smashing them. I believe that the majority of the people in this country are prepared to settle them by the method of counting heads, and since we have settled our disputes amicably for nearly 200 years without civil war I suggest that we proceed on the assumption that that is to be continued in the future. The war has proved the unity of this country, and that the people, by their own democratic decisions,

have been prepared to accept sacrifices and a discipline which far exceeds the discipline exhibited by any other country in the world. That has been done by agreement. I am bound to admit from these benches that the Conservatives, who were elected by a large majority, and who were assumed to be reactionary and to suppress minorities, have during this Parliament, by agreement, given way on many social reforms to the demands of minorities, and by agreement we have made more progress in social reform during the past four years than we had made for many years prior to that time.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Member give some examples?

Mr. Woodburn: One example is that of old age pensioners. The old age pensioner, who at the beginning of the war had 10s., can now, if a married man with a family, have 35s. per week, plus his rent, and a great many other things as well if they are available.

Mr. Maxton: He could still get help before this war.

Mr. Woodburn: Only if he was prepared to go to the Poor Law, and many of our people would not go to the Poor Law. In my own constituency a large number of people were practically starving because they would not submit to what they thought to be the humiliation of the Poor Law. In some districts people were driven to such a state that they nearly all had to go to the Poor Law, but in some parts of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) knows, people felt it to be humiliating to go to the Poor Law. The purpose of an election is not to elect people to give voice to a minority in the House of Commons but to decide which Government is to conduct the affairs of this country. If we forget that, we shall be led into all sorts of side lanes as to who should be represented in the House of Commons. There are three questions proposed for consideration in regard to the election of a Government to govern the country. The first is—and it is the main one before us—that we should reconsider our own system; the second is Proportional Representation and the third is the alternative vote. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who followed the Minister that it cannot be settled on a mere mechanical assumption.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1944.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Question again proposed,
That this House welcomes the proposal of His Majesty's Government to set up a Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats and to invite Mr. Speaker to preside.

Mr. Woodburn: Mr. Speaker, just before the interruption I commenced to discuss the point that there were three systems proposed to us by which we might improve our electoral system. Our own system is based on the division of the country into geographical areas with approximately equal electoral districts, and with, in the main, single-Member constituencies. Criticisms are made of this system, the first of which deals with the question of registration. It has been our experience for many years now that, when elections take place, the registers are always out of date. Modern industry requires a considerable amount of mobility on the part of the population, and in the period of six to nine months, and perhaps more, that may elapse between the making of a register and the election itself, there may be very considerable changes of population. The Minister has indicated that the Government are rather favourable to the question of continuous registration, and my hon. Friends feel themselves bound in that direction as well, and they hope that it may be possible to continue the system proposed under the Emergency Act into the peace-time period.
The second criticism is in regard to plural voting, and here there is considerable criticism in regard to the possibility of one individual being able to influence elections in six, seven or eight different constituencies. It is true he cannot do that at the time of a General Election, but, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) pointed out, in the case of by-elections he can actually influence the return of Members for as many constituencies as he may qualify for on the registration principle. That is rather

a serious criticism of our present electoral system. When he came to the question of plural voting at a General Election, he took the instance of the City of London. I think we can all agree that the City of London has a rather unique position, since it consists entirely of offices, but in these other central districts, where there are not only offices, but residences, what happens in effect is that the business vote, which he defended, practically disfranchises the residents there because it is simply overwhelming. It is quite wrong, in the case of central districts in towns where there are residential qualifications, that a business vote which is outside a district altogether and controlled by people who already have ample voting opportunities, should actually be able to decide the Member for the people who live there. I think that, generally speaking, the Labour Party would be against the perpetuation of this business vote save in the exceptional circumstances of the City of London. A good deal has been said about the university elections and the excellence of the people who are returned here as their Members. I am not prepared to dispute the personal excellence of the people who come to represent the universities. That is hardly the point; I am quite sure the same people would be able to return for normal constituencies. The only question is, Should there be an additional vote and an additional representation for people who graduate at universities? Personally, I doubt that. Up till now the very fact that they have not shown enough intelligence to return one Labour Member disqualifies them, in my mind, from being sufficiently educated politically to exercise the franchise at all.

Captain Cobb: There might be two views about that.

Mr. Woodburn: I quite agree, but the very fact that the one is a modern view and the other is ancient suggests that the prejudice in that argument is in my favour. I have seen on the University registration a doctor who qualified as far back as the latter part of the last century. He himself must be very old, and he lives in Africa. His ideas can have nothing to do with this country, and why he should exercise a vote in this country now I cannot understand. Moreover, we were told that the Universities have special qualifications for voting. Like the hon. Member


for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), I have had an opportunity of seeing the voting at a University, and I recall that a distinguished lawyer had signed his paper, had it duly witnessed as having been signed by him, and returned it to the Registrar, and yet he had not even put his cross on the paper. There are more spoilt papers in a University election than there are in any normal election. I think, therefore, that the argument about the exceptional ability of people who qualify for the vote at University elections is rather exaggerated. A man may be a very good doctor and a very bad politician; he may be a very good mathematician and a bad politician; he may be led away by calculations about numerical voting and things of that kind that have nothing to do with our normal system of electioneering.
The third criticism is that our present system gives great advantages to wealth, and the costs of elections would be a very important thing to be considered by the Electoral Commission. Even the Conservative Party itself complains about the penalising candidates by the imposition of money qualifications before they can stand. The buying of seats is a very bad type of representation and the sooner this is dismissed from all parties the better.
My own party took steps many years ago to prevent selection being made on these grounds, and I would commend that to the advantage of the country as a whole. Then there is the question of redistribution and the effect of that in time on electoral areas, if allowed to get out of proportion. Sometimes there is an assumption that if you alter a system everything becomes perfect. That does not follow at all. You may have anomalies now, but no matter what you do with the system I suggest that anomalies will remain. One of the arguments in favour of Proportional Representation is that it ought to be connected with groups. Our system does its best to try to give Proportional Representation in the House of Commons. I have noticed constituencies divided into rural and urban, and, therefore, you have a degree of Proportional Representation of rural constituencies and a proportion of urban constituencies. Then there is the geographical consideration. I look with horror on the prospect of everybody being reduced to

dull uniformity. I think it would be a tragedy if the contribution to culture, education and different trends of thought that can be made by different nationalities were to be wiped out merely on the mathematical formula of numbers. Scotland, Ireland and Wales can make a contribution to this House apart from their numbers, and it would be a tragedy if, owing to economic circumstances, population developed all around the London area so that the voice of the country was reduced in this House. I would advocate that geographical areas ought to be taken into account in allocating the number of seats for these particular countries.
The question of redistribution must be viewed with a little more gravity than the counting of heads. I would suggest that until the population knows where it is likely to go it would be much better to postpone any great redistribution. The Orkneys and Shetlands have been instanced. There is a large number of men from industrial areas working now in the Orkneys and Shetland. They reside there. Can anybody say that the man from Glasgow, Bradford or London who is at present working there is the proper person to say who shall represent the Orkneys and Shetlands in the House of Commons? As has been said, the Orkneys and Shetlands have the tradition and spirit of people who belong to the countryside. It is for them to return their Member and not for foreigners who have come in from outside. We can reproduce that argument all over the country. You have a few people left in the East End of London. Are they to decide who shall represent the East End of London? Are industrial people, who have been moved into country areas, to decide who shall represent the countryside? I think it will give a false representation in this House and be extremely undesirable if we at this time plunge into a redistribution of constituencies which would dislocate the normal life of our people. We want people in this House who are really representative of the people who elect them and not merely passengers for a short space of time.
It may seem that if partial redistribution takes place it would be likely to discourage the proper tackling of the job of full distribution. While the anomalies of Romford, East Renfrew and Hendon


are with us they may not wholly disappear by partial redistribution. I think it would be better to suffer slight anomalies and wait until it is possible to make the job complete. The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are both engaged on a project to build about 5,000,000 houses. What is the point of starting redistribution until you know where the houses are to be built and where the people are to live? Romford has become a problem for a second time, and may well become a problem for the third time, unless we wait until the population is settled and is redistributed in the proper way. I hope the Home Secretary will take account of another criticism of our present system and that is the confusion that exists between local government electoral law and national Government electoral law. The Corrupt Practices Act and other anomalies about costs have led to a great deal of confusion and I think it would be an advantage if these things could be assimilated when the changes take place.
The main argument put forward to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Sir H. Holdsworth) was on behalf of Proportional Representation and we must admit that there are certain plausible arguments in favour of this system. It is said that it would give expression in this House to minorities. I am satisfied that there is no minority in this country that cannot find expression in this House. It is also said that it would reduce the swing of the pendulum. There may be an argument in that but that, again, may create the very situation that nobody wants, namely, the Government of the day being in such a position that they cannot make a decision. A further argument, which is a powerful one, and must be taken into consideration, is that this system has worked. It works in Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and Ireland, and therefore, without condemning it out of hand, consideration must be given as to how it has worked in those countries. I have studied the views for and against and I must say that they are confusing. You have people denouncing it on the ground that it would bring into existence many more parties but my criticism is that the purport of elections is not to give representation to minority opinions but to carry on the Government of the country. Government must be carried on by a

Government which is able to make decisions and that Government, so far as possible, ought to be a homogenous Government. It is true that in Coalitions during a war you can get a Government that comes to internal agreement, but in peace-time that is much more difficult and there is much more likelihood of internal disagreement because of the pressure on the Government and on parties from outside. This would tend to make a stalemate and put up resistance to proposals rather than agreement to get proposals carried. There is no doubt that Proportional Representation does tend to stimulate the coming into being of a large number of groups of people. I listed some of the people who might conceivably form groups in this country. We might have the prohibition group.

Mr. Maxton: We had.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, there was one prohibition Member for Dundee. I think it is quite likely that we should get a very large minority view with regard to prohibition. Then the Home Secretary might find himself faced with a group in favour of Sunday entertainment—already here in nucleus—and in contrast to that with a group of Sabbatarians. I could guarantee quite a few from Scotland and I am sure that Wales would provide a number. Then we might have a peace group, a Navy group, a capital punishment abolition group, religious groups of great variety and even a farmers' group which thought they could accomplish things better than working through the recognised parties. If it was a question of having a debating society then there might be an argument for it but if it is the purpose of the Government to get on with the business of government these groups would cause delaying and frustrating actions. I have not mentioned other groups which are already represented in the various parties which sit below the Gangway. It is difficult to know exactly what political principles to which many of them who have been returned as Independents give allegiance but they could easily swell into groups and parties which could add to the confused political situation. The main criticism that must be answered by the advocates of Proportional Representation is the fact that in the main it will destroy the single Member constituencies. It will increase the size of these enormously. During an election in


my constituency it is a tour de force to be able to visit every place that ought to be visited. Electors think they are entitled to see their Member of Parliament and their candidate. If you multiply the constituencies a great deal you will deprive these constituents of their connection with their Member of Parliament. There is something to be said for our constitutional system as it is at present in that while a candidate may represent a party he also becomes the Member for the constituency when he is elected. Apart altogether from his party allegiance he has a loyalty to his constituency and the constituency knows who represents them.
If you take a composite constituency returning one Conservative, one Socialist, one Liberal, one I.L.P. and one Common Wealth, what does the constituency stand for in the House of Commons? Can anybody tell me? It increases the costs of running an election and, therefore, enhances the purpose of wealth in fighting seats. I think the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who broadcast last night, stated a very good point—that the great publicity organs of this country would very largely determine who were to be Members of Parliament and that the Members themselves would have less and less influence on their constituencies and the electorate. The other system proposed is the alternative vote, which we must consider for a moment. This is considered by some of its advocates to keep the single constituency and get over the difficulty of the so-called minority representation. If we take Carnarvonshire, where the hon. Member was returned on a minority vote, we see that the Liberal vote was about 18,000, the Labour vote about 17,000 and the Independent vote about 3,000. In this case the Independent would decide whether it was to be the Liberal or Conservative Member, but it does not follow that these independent voters would vote for the person they wanted to be the Member. They may vote against a person they want in order to keep out. In other words, they are not voting for a Government but to prevent a Government. That is a thing that must be deprecated if democracy is to work. If you are to have politics of frustration and obstruction democracy will come to an end, as it came to an end in Germany, France and many other countries. A great deal of

this argument for minority representation is that it is in order to get groups into the House of Commons, but that will cause confusion, with the result that no Government will be able to make decisions that can be effective.
If we take the three party systems, supposing you had equal numbers returned. If the Conservatives became a Government, the Labour and Liberal Parties will always obstruct what they propose. If the Labour Party becomes a Government, the Liberals and Conservatives will obstruct what they propose, and if the Liberals become a Government Conservatives and Labour will obstruct what they propose, and you would get a complete stalemate, such as occurred in Germany, and if the House of Commons ceased to work progress would sweep it aside. Democracy depends on having a majority vote. The hon. Member who advocated Proportional Representation argued that people were entitled to send as many parties to the House of Commons as they liked. I agree with that but I do not agree that the people should be deprived of the right of saying which party is to govern the country. If the Liberal Party stands as the third party and is perpetuated in future history, people will have to vote for the Liberal Party without knowing which Government it is going to stand for. That is depriving the electors of saying which Government is to govern the country. It may be true that it is a disadvantage to have three parties, but no one has been able to show how you can have more than two Lobbies when it comes to a vote, and the electors are entitled to know before the election whether the vote of their constituencies is to be cast for or against the Government. Therefore, I think the present system, which tends towards the two party system, is a logical one which forces people to settle their differences outside the House and settle their groups before they go forward to the electors so that the issue will be clear that so and so stands for the proposed Government or some other Government.
I think it is worth while recalling some of the advantages that we get from the party system. A great many people talk about getting the best representatives of all parties, and there is a certain attractiveness about that, but you would have a House of Commons of super-intellec-


tuals who have no political adherences or political principles who just vote on the issues when they arise. If the electors are faced with 615 one man parties, that deprives them of the purpose of elections, which is to select, the Government that is to govern the country. At present the Conservative Party go to the electors and say, "If you vote for this candidate, who has been approved by us, we will guarantee that he will, as far as we can manage it, support a Conservative Government and carry out the policy that we have put before the electors. If he does not we will repudiate him, as the Conservative Party has done in some cases, and it will be for the electors at the next election to see that he ceases to be the Member."

Commander King-Hall: If the hon. Member's doctrine had been carried out would it not have been unfortunate in the case of the present Prime Minister?

Mr. Woodburn: We are not discussing personalities. The Labour Party gives a guarantee that if a person accepts Labour representation he will, as far as possible, support Labour policy. He is not asked to vote against his conscience but we lay it down that at no time is a Member of Parliament elected on a general electoral policy entitled to use his position for his own personal kinks or advantages. He is abusing the electoral policy of the country and the party if he uses it for his personal idiosyncracies. But all parties allow a considerable latitude, and there has never been the slightest difficulty about Members putting forward extremely minority points of view. It gives the further advantage to the electors that, when the next election comes, a party which has given its pledges through these candidates cannot avoid its responsibility to the electors for its actions or inactions. If one Member can say that the other 614 prevented him from doing it there is no reply to that, but when you have the responsibility of the party the electors can say, "Your party is responsible and you will be held responsible and, if we do not agree with you, we can put you out."

Mr. McKinlay: When did this country ever accept the system of tariffs?

Mr. Woodburn: Elections do not decide points of detailed policy. They elect the Government that is going to carry on the country and, when they select a Government, they must accept the decisions of that Government for the time being and, if they do not like them, they have to turn them out. [Interruption.] This Government was selected by the fact that the people returned Members who decided that the time had come when a Coalition Government? had to be formed. This is a House of representatives and not of delegates. The point is quite a false one and does not interfere with the argument at all.

Mr. Maxton: I thought it was the point that you were making, which you now say is a false one.

Mr. Woodburn: It is the same as the point about tariffs. When the party goes back to the country, if the country disapproves, they can turn out everyone who agrees with that policy.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose——

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be better to have not so many interruptions. Time is getting on and it is hard to get in all who want to speak.

Mr. Woodburn: The point that has been raised is an important one but it forgets this part of our Constitution, that the House of Commons does not proceed according to the views of the electorate as expressed at the last general election. I know of no institution so sensitive to public opinion as the House of Commons, and the House of Commons does not rely on the public opinion expressed at the last election. Public opinion has its influence on the House of Commons, and we have all seen its decisions altered by public opinion.
The electorate has a further great advantage in the two-party system that it has a possible alternative Government. In other words, if you have a great majority of Conservatives, and the country does not like the Conservative Government, they can turn it out and put the second party in but if you have a multitude of small groups there is no possibility of an alternative government. A multitude of groups leads to immoral bargaining and corruption. Our Parliamentary system provides an opportunity for a peaceful


revolution at least every five years. The Government can be overturned without violence and a new one put in its place, and it is because that system has worked that we have been able to avoid the catastrophes that have occurred on the Continent. Therefore three or more parties become a danger to the proper working of the House. They may give a majority decision against action and obstruct positive policy and, the more parties there are, the more danger there is of stalemate. At present the Government places its policy in a Bill before the House of Commons, and anyone who wants can buy a copy of the Bill and study it, and in two days Members can be apprised of the views of the population. When the Second Reading takes place it is not only the views of Members of Parliament that are expressed. Members are able to express to the Government the views of the country through their constituents. You have all the advantages of a court of law. The Government is cross-examined by the Opposition, the policy is open to criticism and any weaknesses are disclosed and, when the Bill finally leaves the House of Commons it is as perfect as by our democratic procedure it can be made. From the point of view of the public that has an attractiveness which no other form of publicity can achieve and the study of the reports of the Debates is a great education in civics. The system has stood the test of time. Very powerful arguments will have to be brought forward before we give up the existing system in favour of something which would have less satisfactory results. We welcome the Committee that is to be set up under the Speaker's chairmanship and we wish it every success.

Sir Douglas Hacking: We have listened to a very interesting and instructive speech, full of sound commonsense. I liked very much the hon. Member's defence of the Parliamentary institutions of the country and especially his defence of the present electoral system. He said that we had had no experience of a minority failing in its desire to give expression to its opinion in the House. I think he is right. Minorities always have a very fair chance here, but that is a testimonial to yourself, Sir, and it is probably the best of all reasons why you should have been selected, and I am

told unofficially have accepted the position of chairman of this Conference. We are all delighted that you have agreed and we are satisfied that under your authority the Conference will work well. Whatever may be said either for or against any fundamental change in our electoral system, I am going to assume for the purposes of my speech that there is in fact going to be no great change brought about as the result of the Conference, and anything that I have to say will be based on that assumption. But even if we discard any basic alterations in our existing system there are, nevertheless, many smaller matters, each important in itself, which call for early attention. But before I come to these changes, I would like to mention this question of the redistribution of seats. It was dealt with very fully by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and other Members have also dwelt largely upon it. I submit that no one can defend the position of one constituency having over 200,000 electors and another constituency having, approximately, 20,000 electors. Nobody can defend a position such as that. I notice that the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) does not go so far as desiring partial redistribution. He wants to put off redistribution until we get a complete resettlement of the population. I am afraid I do not agree with that view. It will, I think, be necessary to have two bites at this particular cherry. At an early date I think there must obviously be partial redistribution, but until the population really settles down after the war redistribution should not be made permanent.
The more glaring anomalies should be put right without delay, but the more permanent redistribution should be dealt with at a later stage, possibly, as was suggested by the Home Secretary, by setting up a permanent boundary commission. Personally, I like the idea of a permanent boundary commission, because they can exercise a check on the growth of certain constituencies before the position gets so hopeless, as it is to-day. I agree with the Home Secretary that the House ought not to be asked to effect frequent changes, such as every six months, but there ought to be some body in existence which can at suitable intervals examine this problem of the size of constituencies and report to


this House whenever they think it is desirable to do so. I am frankly impressed with that idea, and I think that the setting up of some such permanent boundary commission would prevent things getting as bad as they are now, because then they would obviously be much easier to deal with. I hold views about the matters which the Conference will have to debate, but I do not want to discuss a whole host of questions now. Rather, I desire to concentrate on one important feature of elections, namely that of election expenses.
I notice that this question of election expenses will be covered by the draft agenda which was mentioned by the Home Secretary. I think it would probably come under the heading of "Conduct and Costs of Elections." Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House hold strong views on this important matter. First and foremost, I believe we must encourage ability when we consider representation in this House. The hon. Member for East Stirling put the case crudely but, I think, very forcibly when he said the buying of seats must be abolished. I think most of us, if not all of us, deprecate wealth having a greater influence than ability. That, if I may say so, applies to all parties, and we must make that perfectly clear. I have often said that if wealth or influence is the main factor in the returning of hon. Members to this House, then God help the future government of the country. There is a happy combination of these two, wealth and ability, and I would say, with the author of the Beggars' Opera, "How happy would some of us be with either." Therefore, I make no apology for dealing solely with the question of expenses which candidates, Members or some organisation on behalf of Members have to bear.
I believe that the general expenses should be made very much lower than they are at present. It should be made much easier for Members of Parliament who are less wealthy than others to have the opportunity of representing constituents in this House. Candidly, I would like candidates to be more independent of outside influences, in order that they may be chosen for their character and ability alone. How best can we effect these reductions? I venture to submit that the Conference should first consider the reduction of the legal maximum expendi-

ture per elector. At present the limit is 5d. per head in boroughs and 6d. in county constituencies. I would like to see both sums reduced by at least 1d., to see the future limit in boroughs 4d. at the most and in county constituencies, 4½d. at the most. But that these reductions in themselves are really insufficient. They should be conditional upon other economies.
Among these additional economies, I would suggest for consideration that all schools in receipt of financial assistance from public funds should be at the disposal of candidates for their public meetings, free of charge. The law, I believe, lays it down that only public elementary schools should be available for this purpose. I would like to see all schools in receipt of public funds compelled to allow candidates to use their schoolrooms for public meetings free of charge altogether. Secondly, as hon Members know, certain expenditure by outside organisations is at present illegal unless the consent of the election agent is obtained. This illegal expenditure by outside organisations includes the printing and publishing of circulars, the cost of meetings, and many other activities, but when a law was passed prohibiting the interference of outside organisations in a constituency without the election agent's consent such abominations as loudspeakers had not been invented. At present, apparently, they are legal and can be used by outside organisations. If that is so, I certainly think they should be included among the illegalities, again, of course, except with the consent of the election agent, and even then they should be included in the election expenses.
A great economy could be effected if the State would assume the obligation, through the returning officer, of sending the elector his poll card. At the present time an elector may receive a number of poll cards corresponding to the number of candidates in any one election. It is probably annoying for the elector to receive so many poll cards, and it is expensive for the individuals who send them out. If you substituted one poll card, sent out under public funds, you would obviously create a great general saving, and you would also make things much easier and lessen the cost for the individual candidate. If that suggestion is adopted, it should be made illegal for any candidate to issue a poll card himself. Another


slight economy could be effected by limiting the polling hours. I am informed that very few electors go to the polling booths before 8 o'clock in the morning. I hope, therefore, that the Conference will consider the stabilisation of polling hours for all constituencies from 8 o'clock in the morning to 9 o'clock at night. I think that would be a practical compromise.

Mr. R.C. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman qualify that statement by exempting places like London where, in the outer parts, a multitude of people must leave home long before 8 o'clock in the morning and do not get back until later than 9 o'clock?

Sir D. Hacking: The Speaker's Conference, of course, would have to consider all these points, but I am suggesting it Would be a desirable thing, if possible, to stabilise the opening hours. There are exceptions to be made, such as that suggested by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R.C. Morrison), and I am sure that the Speaker's Conference will give them consideration. One final matter to which the Conference should give consideration, in order to encourage the Less wealthy claimant, is subscriptions, charitable and otherwise. I have never yet been able to get a proper definition of "charitable," so I would like to add to it the word "otherwise." It may sound revolutionary, but I believe that serious consideration might well be given to the suggestion that subscriptions by Members of Parliament to charities and other institutions in a constituency should be made illegal. Very often it tends towards a system of bribery, although I believe nobody loses very much by not subscribing liberally to the various organisations in a constituency. Personally, I have never done so, and I have been lucky in being here for a very long time. It seems to me wrong that there should be this possibility of bribery, and if we were all prevented from contributing to the various cricket clubs, football clubs and other institutions in our own constituencies, it might be a very good thing, and would certainly effect a very great economy for the limited purses of prospective candidates.

Major Sir George Davies: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not lost

sight of the fact that some Members live, in their constituencies and they, whether they are Members of Parliament or not, would subscribe to some of the things mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: Both hon. Members will remember that we are dealing with electoral reform and the redistribution of seats. I am not certain that subscriptions by a private individual would be in Order.

Sir D. Hacking: I do not want to say anything which would not be in Order, but I understand that one of the points on the agenda, as suggested by the Home Secretary, was the conduct and cost of elections.

Mr. Speaker: Exactly so; the cost of elections is in Order, but what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting does not affect the cost of elections; he is dealing with expenditure at a time when no election is in progress or possibly even imminent.

Sir D. Hacking: It does not refer to the cost of running elections, I admit, and will not press the matter further. Hon. Members may say that each one of the economies I have mentioned is a small matter, but I assure them that the cumulative effect of these small economies will be very great. They would be much appreciated by most of the candidates, especially those who do not happen to be wealthy. It would help the poorer man possessing ability to enter the portals of this House, and, what is very important, would give a much wider choice to constituency associations when they are considering the adoption of a candidate. The result would be a better House of Commons and a stronger Government. It is high time that we had a consolidation of election law, and especially a review of the Corrupt Practices Acts. The latter, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said, are completely out of date and I fear are frequently ignored in the interests of commonsense. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when your Conference assembles you will bring to its notice all those matters which were in Order which I have touched upon. I do not envy you your position, but I am confident—and I am sure my views are shared by every Member on every side of the House—that if anybody can create order out of this existing degree of chaos, you are the individual. I wish you the best of good fortune in your trials.

Mr. Pritt: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) will not expect me to follow him, because I want to deal with rather different subjects, but I would agree with him that the cumulative effect of the various economies which he suggests may be very considerable. I join with other Members in welcoming the procedure in the setting up of the Conference under you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it is the only practical machinery for something which is of extreme importance to the next Parliament, which will be the most important in our history. I want to add to the advocacy of Proportional Representation that has come from one or two Members and I want to put it on a wider basis. I will begin by examining the defects of the present single-Member constituency system. As it stands at present, a single-Member constituency, especially in the absence of any alternative vote, in a country that has never had many splinters or groups of parties, but has sometimes had two main parties and very often three, really means that the ordinary voter is confronted by a choice of two or occasionally three, and very rarely more, serious candidates, all of them pre-selected by party machines, those party machines being in some cases fairly democratic and in some cases highly oligarchic.
The actual result to the ordinary elector is that he really has no choice but to decide between two general policies or two big leaders. That is a great deal better than nothing, but it is a very long way from any real share in the government of the country. We must remember, too, that in 1935, for example, with regard to two-thirds of the seats in the House you could prophesy pretty well which party would win. That meant that two-thirds of the House was appointed and not elected at all. Once you got the general trend of view in the country, the individual who was to come here was appointed either by a party machine or by a selection conference which, to some extent, was a reflection of a party machine, or by a combination of or negotiations between the two. That is not a satisfactory way of selecting Members of Parliament.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Would not that balance itself out? Would it not work one way in one division and another way in another division?

Mr. Pritt: I am not suggesting that it affects one party more than another; I am only suggesting that it is not a way in which the people select their representatives, but that it is a way in which the party machine selects the representatives of the people. I am not content with a bad House of Commons which fairly represents the actual trend in the country. I want a good House of Commons that fairly represents the actual trend. I do not in this mean to condemn the party system as a whole. The party system is a very good thing if worked properly. I do not see any danger of Proportional Representation leading to the 615 parties that worried the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) so much, although his praise of the Tory Party was so whole-hearted that I cannot see that it matters to him very much what party is in power.
The trouble goes a little further than that. If you have single-Member constituencies divided geographically, and most of them containing the ordinary general classifications of people in the country, some rich, some poor, some even taking an interest in politics but the great majority of them not doing so, it does on the whole tend to make perhaps half, or more than half, or the constituencies rather like one another, each likely to have very much the same results as the other, so that while you get strong Labour representation in really industrial areas, there is a long string of seats in which the Tory Party will have a majority representing something like 55 to 45. If you repeat that over a large part of the country you have an enormous Tory majority. It might work the other way, but it has more often worked the Tory way. You then have a very large Tory majority with grotesque results when you compare it with the actual voting in the country.
There is one further bad element in that. If you have a lot of constituencies like that, where the actual results will be swayed by something like 15 to 20 per cent. of the electors, in a country that is not yet very politically thoughtful, then those electors can be more easily swayed by a stunt or a swindle than the rest. It does put a tremendous premium, a tremendous temptation, in the way of the party machine to trot out some bogy like the Savings Bank story, or the Zinoviev letter, or something of that sort. The only provocative thing I am going to


say—and I am sure hon. Members would be disappointed if I did not say one provocative thing—is this. If the Tories would just charge their memories, can they recall in their lifetime an election in which the Tory Party did not try to put over a dirty trick at the last moment? The temptation is very great and I have not seen them resist it yet. [An HON. MEMBER: "Chinese crackers."] Certainly, if you go back as far as 1906 you will find the Liberals doing the same thing, which was unnecessary because the Tories were dead then anyhow. Actually the Labour Party, if I am permitted to lecture that body which turned me out for saying that we ought not to go to war with the U.S.S.R., is unwise to stand by the existing system of single-Member constituencies—apparently from the speech of its statesman a few minutes ago even without the alternative vote—because if they will look back they will see that every time this artificial exaggeration of the majorities has worked against them, except in 1929. The lesson for the capitalist parties in 1929 was sufficiently strong to make them take precautions against, it ever happening again.
Let me turn to discuss various remedies. The alternative vote in single-Member constituencies goes a little way. I cannot conceive that it would do any harm. I can conceive that it would often do good. I cannot see any valid argument against it, except, of course, the argument that it does not go nearly far enough. I do not think that anybody thinks that the second ballot, which we have seen work in France, is a good thing. There is altogether too much wangling about it and it does not cure most of the evils. A form of Proportional Representation, which has been operated in various countries on the Continent, of voting for lists, seems to have a good many defects. The odd thing about it is that it has worked very well in one or two countries, but I do not defend it. I suggest that what is known as Proportional Representation with the single transferable vote, in constituencies of three, four, five or six Members, is much the best system. The speech of the Home Secretary giving us the narrative was a little false on this point. He told us a good deal about the 1916–17 Speaker's Conference, and said that, in the main, its proposals had been carried into law

in the Representation of the People Act. What he did not tell us—and I am sure it was not deliberate—was that that Conference recommended unreservedly the adoption in a large number of constituencies of Proportional Representation with the single transferable vote, and that it went so far as to have scheduled to its report full draft rules for such elections and an elaborate explanation of the actual working out of one, which even Mr. Gladstone himself could have understood without the least difficulty.

Mr. Quentin Hogg: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman consulted with hon. Members in this House who represent double-Member constituencies as to the disadvantages of being a Member in harness with somebody else, because, as I understand it, he is recommending that the ordinary constituency should be a treble-Member constituency and not a double-Member constituency?

Mr. Pritt: I shall reach that point, but I can answer without consulting hon. Gentlemen on the other side, because I was for the best part of five years a candidate for a double-Member constituency, and I did a large part of the agonising work of looking after the grievances of people in the constituency. The hon. Gentleman and I must share the distinction of being the most quarrelsome Members in the House, but I never quarrelled with the people with whom I was working in double harness. One of them was Marion Phillips, who was a grand woman but one of the most quarrelsome Members of the House. This suggestion of the Speaker's Conference in 1917 was only rejected in another place——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think that what happened was that the Speaker was asked to suggest 100 constituencies for the experiment and the experiment was to be agreed to by Resolution of both Houses. Every constituency which the Speaker suggested said, "No, it is a grand idea but not for this constituency."

Mr. Pritt: I am told that the hon. Member is not correct. I suggest that when he wants to correct people he should not start off by saying that he thinks he is right and that he should correct them only if he knows he is rights. There is not one word about that in the whole


report of the Speaker's Conference. Proportional Representation is in no sense new or novel or mysterious, and that I think is all I need say about the history of it.
No one denies for a moment that it is a system that produces a more accurate representation of opinion in the country. The objections that are raised to it are not objections of substance, but of detail. One of the very common objections is that it produces groups and splinters of parties all over the place. There is no doubt that it does tend to perpetuate groups in countries where there are groups already, as was seen in Germany, but there is not the least ground for believing that in this country it would produce more groups or parties than we now have—Labour, Liberal, Conservative, perhaps for a time Common Wealth, and Communist. The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) was very anxious to show that it would produce groups and splinters. He suggested that it would produce a prohibition party, but we have already had a prohibition party which turned the present Prime Minister out of the House of Commons once, without the assistance of Proportional Representation. It consisted of only one man, who did not do any harm. If that is the kind of problem that is going to result from Proportional Representation, we need not worry about it.

Mr. Hogg: Has the hon. and learned Member considered the possibility of a farmers' party, a miners' party or a Roman Catholic party?

Mr. Pritt: If the hon. Member were not so impatient he might find out that the very next word on my notes is "farmer." He is not content that the hon. Member for East Stirling should use that argument; he wants to repeat it to me before I can answer it. A farmers' party? Have we not got one already—although the only difference is that it calls itself Tory? There is the suggestion of a capital punishment party. The hon. Member mentioned a Roman Catholic party. I know that is one of the things he detests.

Mr. Hogg: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but it really is not fair to suggest that I detest a great branch of the Christian religion like that. It is quite untrue and unfair. My feelings towards it are most friendly.

Mr. Pritt: I withdraw, unhesitatingly, the suggestion, but I derived it entirely from hearing the hon. Member say many things in the past. It only proves that I did not understand him in the least. I think it is conclusively shown that it is not likely that we should have groups in this country who would lead to stalemate in politics. The hon. Member for East Stirling said that the primary function of a General Election was to decide who was to govern the country. That is one very important function, but you do not need, in order to perform it, to perpetuate a system which gives in this House a very wrong misrepresentation of the general opinion in the country. You can decide who is to govern the country equally well by choosing people who do, almost exactly, represent the real feeling in the country.
Then, it is said that there would be a tendency towards making things too impersonal, and constituencies too large. The hon. Member said that people had a right to see the candidate. I think most supporters of Proportional Representation would say that it not only gives people the right to see the candidate but some chance of seeing a candidate they might really like. The argument that it will be impossible to go round the constituency was always advanced when constituencies began to grow in the number of the electorate. I was once prospective Liberal candidate for a constituency with an electorate of 3,000. I was told that it was a nice, handy constituency and much better than one with a 10,000 electorate, which, they said, was quite impossible to work. We shall find the same thing said when constituencies have four or five times as many Members to look after them. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said how much he liked to get letters beginning with such words as "As a member of your constituency, I write to you." I quite agree. I get a hundred letters like that a day. Having regard to the large number of people who write to me like that, and who live in places about 10 miles off, I might say that I have, in fact, got Proportional Representation at work. I do not see how it can be any more difficult to look after the electorate when there are four or five Members to 400,000 electors instead of only one looking after 80,000.

Captain Strickland: May I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that each of those Members has to look after the whole number?

Mr. Pritt: Then the hon. and gallant Member is not very good at the division of labour and I recommend him not to become a director of any company, if he thinks that five people cannot do at least five times as much work as one. The odd thing about this scheme is that neither of the two main party machines, Labour and Conservative, up to now seems to like Proportional Representation. While not uniformly disapproving of the party machine, I suggest that the fact that neither of them really likes it is something in its favour. Party machines are very useful, and nobody can get on without them, but when they grow too strong and dictatorial they are not so good. Under the present system, it is very easy for the party machine to say, for instance, to a Conservative who showed opposition to Mr. Chamberlain: "We shall put somebody up against you at the next Election, if you do not toe the line." That was a very formidable threat indeed, but if a man had a considerable popularity and was a good M.P., he could say: "Put somebody up against me next time," and under Proportional Representation there would be enough people in the five-Member constituency to return him. It is certainly necessary to have a reasonable measure of discipline, but not too much, and Proportional Representation will just make the difference and give the electors a better chance to pick people who more accurately represent their views.
The hon. Member for East Stirling had some extraordinary idea that Proportional Representation would destroy the representation of the Scottish people. It will not even destroy the representation of English constituencies by Scottish people. There is no reason why it should destroy the representation of Scotland. I believe he thought Scotland was going to be so depopulated that it would not need so many Members. That is a different matter. Proportional Representation has nothing whatever to do with that point.
There is another point which is incidentally in favour of Proportional Representation, namely, that of redistribution. We may be worrying about the probability

whether certain areas are to be permanently swollen or drained, because we can never tell whether certain big factories are going to be kept on or to be laid waste; it will depend, indeed, on which party controls industrial policy after the war. The difficulties are so great that the hon. Member for East Stirling suggested that we should actually postpone redistribution for a time in certain areas; but if in a borough or group of county areas with four Members, it was discovered that their population had gone up, it would be almost a routine matter to say that, the electorate of the place having gone up by so much, it was to have one more Member. That is the only difference it would make. Only in extreme cases would it be necessary to alter the boundary. That is one more reason, although an incidental one, in favour of Proportional Representation.
It is astonishing that Parliament works as well as it does, having regard to the extreme misrepresentation of the opinion of the country, not merely six months afterwards but at the very moment of an election. This misrepresentation results from the present system. I will not take up any more time by giving quotations. Every Member knows the sort of thing that has happened. All I can say is that if the Labour Party are desirous of having another election as unbalanced as that of 1931, I hope that they will think again.

Sir Reginald Blair: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will pardon me if I do not follow him in the interesting speech which he made. He spoke strongly in favour of Proportional Representation, but I must say that I am very much opposed to it and I sincerely hope that it will never be tried further while I am alive. I should like to congratulate the present Home Secretary upon the speed which has been shown in having a Debate on this subject, different from his predecessors. As long as eight years ago, the late hon. Member for Cathcart, Sir John Train, got a resolution passed unanimously in this House asking the Government to give immediate consideration to this question of redistribution. Since then, I am afraid I hive been rather insistent in asking Questions to point out the great anomalies that exist. It was not that I wanted any part of the constituency which I represent to be taken away, but that I wanted the House


and the country to see the terrible anomalies.
I will give one illustration. I am a Middlesex Member. There are to county Members for Middlesex and seven borough Members. It is very difficult to get the figures from books, but if you take the Register as it was before the war broke out you see that the 10 county seats in Middlesex had an electorate of well over 1,000,000 or an average of 100,000. There are five boroughs, represented by seven Members of Parliament. I could never understand why an important place like Tottenham should have two Members of Parliament with an electorate of 98,000 while county divisions had 200,000. I am very glad that the Speaker's Conference is to be set up and I wish it well.
It would be too personal to speak of my experiences with a large electorate, but I think it is a mistaken idea that a big electorate naturally means a great deal of expense. It means nothing of the kind, with only one exception, the exception of General Election expenses. It seems to me to be very bad to allow some candidates to spend between£5,000 and£6,000, for the simple reason that it must narrow the selection of candidates, and I sincerely hope that the suggestion made to-day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charley (Sir D. Hacking) will be adopted. I hope that the Conference will be set up, will report without undue delay and will bring about, at least, a partial scheme of redistribution at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: There is I think general agreement in the House on at least one thing, that we all wish this Conference well, and that we all feel confident, Mr. Speaker, in your guidance as Chairman. Perhaps we may say too that there is agreement that the obstacles standing in the way of any candidate who is at present hindered by lack of means from serving in this House, should no longer be there, and that we should have a more equal division between constituencies. All these things, good as they are, and I welcome the suggestions that have been made from the other side of the House on these points, do not touch the root of the difficulty which has been spoken of so well already by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Sir H. Holdsworth) and my hon. and learned

Friend the Member for North Hammer-smith (Mr. Pritt). We want Parliament to be, in the fullest sense of the word, representative of the nation, and that not only from the point of view of Parliament itself, but also from the point of view of the citizen.
There is something wrong to-day in a position which leaves large, very large, numbers of citizens in different parts of the country with a feeling that they can never give an effective vote, that they have no effective part as citizens. Any one who has had long experience will have met persons of different points of view in different parts of the country who have said, "I have never yet given a vote for a successful candidate." That would be true of Conservatives in South Wales. It would be true of Labour men along almost the whole of the coast of Southern England. It would be true of Liberals in many other parts of the country. It is not good for the country that people should feel that their citizenship is ineffective, and if we can have a rearrangement of the present system, to make citizenship more real for all our citizens, it will be a great thing for Parliament itself and for the country as a whole. We shall be promoting the national unity, itself so important at this time, because, if large sections of the community feel that they are in no way represented in Parliament, it will strike at the basis of national unity.
The hon. Member for South Bradford has already quoted some memorable words of the Prime Minister on this matter, and I do not think it is wrong that we should recall one of the sentences in that speech of his in the Debate of 2nd June, 1931. He said then, and I believe he would stand by these word to-day:
Having to choose, as we shall have to choose if we are to redress the constitutional injustice, between the Alternative Vote, the Second Ballot and Proportional Representation in the cities, I have no doubt whatever that the last is incomparably the fairest, the most scientific and, on the whole, the best in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 931; col. 102, Vol. 253.]
That was the statement of the Prime Minister in this House. I would appeal to my fellow Members to consider these wise words of his to-day, when the need is so much greater than it was then for national unity and for an effective citizenship throughout the whole country. We


have had brought before us in the Debate to-day various reasons why Proportional Representations would not work satisfactorily. A fantastic picture was conjured up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon {Sir H. Williams) about the way in which Proportional Representation could lend itself to bribery and corruption. I wonder whether he has looked at the way in which the system of the single transferable vote has actually worked in our own experience. It has been working for 35 years in Tasmania. You have none of these things there. On the contrary, I was informed by a friend some little time ago that the late Mr. Lyons, a previous Premier of Australia, who was a Tasmanian, had said that from his own experience he had seen how the working of the single transferable vote in Tasmania promoted honest politics. Whereas, under the previous system, Members would bribe their voters by offers that they would not have made if they had not been dependent on a small majority in a single Member constituency, he said he had found that it was not in any way necessary to do this and so purchase the votes of certain groups in order to keep his seat, because he could rely on the larger number of supporters in the larger seat he represented.
That is one experience of the practical working of Proportional Representation. It has been working for over 20 years in Eire, and, whatever objections any one has raised against its working there, I have never heard it suggested that it lent itself to bribery and corruption. It has been said that it would lead to a multiplicity of parties. In Tasmania, there are only two parties although they have been working under Proportional Representation for 35 years. For a long time there have only been two parties. In Eire Parliament there are fewer parties than there are in this Parliament under the single-Member system, and they divide up easily in the actual working of Parliament, voting regularly in two lobbies though there are actually more than two parties. There are no difficulties in practice. There has been stable Government during that period. There have been only two Governments in Eire for 20 years. We have had here under the single-Member constituency system during the last 25 years a constant succession of changes and the exaggeration of majorities in every Parliament.
As has been pointed out already so effectively by my hon. Friend, the present system has not promoted Parliamentary stability as well as having been dishonest as a representation of the opinion of the electors. We need to have a system surely which is just, and it is not sufficient in answer to say that the Conservative in one part of the country who can never get any one of his party elected, is compensated by the fact that there are Labour electors in another part of the country who can never get any one of their party elected. Some one on the other side spoke a little while ago, I think, about rough justice but surely, that is not justice at all. It reminds me of the position of the South American judge of a generation ago who on his death-bed said, "I know I have hanged a great many innocent men but then I have let off a good many guilty ones, so. I think, on the whole, rough justice has been done." Injustice in one constituency does not compensate for injustice in another. It is no compensation to a Conservative in Durham that the Labour man in Sussex has no chance of getting a Member of Parliament. He needs to have the opportunity of feeling that he can have a share in the election of a Member in the district where he resides and works.
If we can get this reform carried through, we shall be able to look forward to differing without bitterness and to co-operating without any false compromise or insincerity in a critical time like that through which Europe is going to pass in the next few years. On that ground also, I believe it is of immense importance that we should take this step forward now. Some Members are not prepared to see any great change of system, but I would plead with them that they should be willing to see an experiment in this most important method of representation, at least, in the large urban districts and the great cities. That was what especially appealed to the Prime Minister years ago, when he advocated this Measure. He pointed out that it would mean the restoration of the personalities of the great cities—a very important thing. If we can get this brought into being, we shall give new hope and new interest in politics to vast numbers who to-day are in danger of falling into indifference or of becoming the tools of a Fascist or a revolutionary movement which is anti-Parliamentary in character. Parliament has been the in-


strument by which in past years we have been able to get what political reforms we required, but it is an instrument which has to be improved from generation to generation. Now is the time to go forward together to a further measure of improvement which will make citizenship a reality to a large number who are denied it to-day.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I should like to say a few words, first on the question of redistribution and then about Proportional Representation. I was a member of the Departmental Committee which spent practically the whole of 1942 going into the question of redistribution and registration. The Home Secretary told us, in so many words, that the Government had come to the conclusion that redistribution must be carried through, but it seems to me that the procedure has been very much more dilatory than it was on the last occasion. Also, there seems to have been a certain amount of duplication. I would like to remind the House what steps were taken before 1918, and to compare them with those taken now. On the last occasion a Speaker's Conference met in October, 1916; it reported in January, 1917; the Boundary Commission was appointed in May, 1917; and it reported in September, 1917. Finally, the Representation of the People Act was passed in the Session of 1918. It took two years from the time when the first steps were taken until the whole matter was completed. On this occasion, the preliminary steps taken so far have been as follow: The Departmental Committee was appointed in January, 1942; it reported in November, 1942; this Debate is taking place in February, 1944, over a year after the Committee charged to consider redistribution reported. So more time has elapsed on this occasion since the initial steps were taken than it took on the last occasion to bring the whole scheme of redistribution into fruition, from first to last.
There has been also a certain amount of duplication. The Departmental Committee which sat during the whole of 1942 considered this question in very great detail. Was that really necessary as regards redistribution, if the whole matter is now to be examined again by Mr. Speaker's Conference? The subjects to be referred to the Speaker's Conference, as mentioned by the Home Secretary, are very voluminous. The Conference is to

consider redistribution, the franchise, the conduct and cost of elections, and the method of election, and I also gathered from the Home Secretary's speech that it was specially to consider the question of assimilating the local government franchise with the Parliamentary franchise. These are very big questions; many of them are very controversial; and if it took the Departmental Committee, of which I was a member, a year to go into these questions, how long, Sir, is it going to take your Conference to go into them? It seems to me that this might very well occupy the Speaker's Conference for another year. If so, when are we going to get redistribution? I would suggest that the Speaker's Conference should be empowered—and I suppose it will be—to make an interim report on redistribution alone, because that is an urgent matter. The Home Secretary told us that it would be asked to consider redistribution first, I think very properly. But it is also to consider electoral reform, Proportional Representation, and so on. Proportional Representation materially affects the question of redistribution. If the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) is to be carried out and Proportional Representation adopted, the whole question of redistribution is fundamentally affected, because under Proportional Representation you must have large constituencies, as everybody knows. Therefore, I suggest that probably the best plan would be for the Speaker's Conference first to dispose of this question of Proportional Representation; and if that is disposed of, it will then be free to go on with the question of redistribution. I am glad that the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has accepted the main recommendation of the departmental committee with regard to redistribution, that is, the creation of standing machinery to examine this matter. We suggested that this standing machinery should consist of a statutory standing commission, of which Mr. Speaker would be chairman, and that it should be a continuous commission, charged with the examination, from time to time, of the boundaries of the various constituencies throughout the country. But there is one point which, I hope, whoever replies for the Government will make quite clear. The Home Secretary stated, as I understood, that the standing machinery or commission to deal with redistribution


would report from time to time, as, of course, it will, if it is adopted. But I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that every time it reported, its report would entail an Act of Parliament. I think the intention of the departmental committee was that this standing machinery or standing boundary commission, whatever you call it, should make its recommendations which should be brought into operation, not with the whole paraphernalia of an Act of Parliament, but by some kind of Order, many of which, no doubt, would require the confirmation of the House of Commons. I think that should be made clear. I think it is now universally agreed that this system of a standing statutory commission to deal with redistribution will be very much more satisfactory than the old system, under which we allowed anomalies to grow up over long periods of time before we did anything to stop them.
If you go back, you will find that there was redistribution in 1867, another one in 1885 and then no more until 1918. There was a period of 18 years between the first and the second, and 33 years between the second and the last one, in 1918. I think that, in these modern times it is now universally admitted that far the better scheme will be to set up this permanent machinery which will have the matter constantly under review. In my view, redistribution ought to take place before the first post-war General Election. It should be complete, if possible, but, if not, then partial. If it is to be complete, it is going to take a long time and time is short, because, as soon as the European war is over, I think the demand for a General Election in this country will be absolutely impossible to resist. Everybody will be agreed that all the great post-war problems, which will then come up for decision in this House, must be decided, not by the present House of Commons, which has long outgrown its contact with the electorate, but by a new House of Commons infused with new ideas and new blood—by a House of Commons in the election of which, the men and women serving in this war will have had their votes. Therefore, I think that there is bound to be an election immediately after the end of the European war. If you look at the present position in the constituencies, you will find that

there are very considerable anomalies. I should like to quote a paragraph from the report of the departmental committee on the present state of the division of constituencies, In paragraph 116, they say this:
The figures just presented show that, by 1939, 119 constituency electorates in Great Britain had ceased to discharge their function of returning an equal share of representation to the House of Commons. Of these, 87 were reduced to a point no longer justifying their present representation, while 32 had increased to an extent which required their representation to be doubled, or, in some cases, even trebled or quadrupled.
That was the position in 1939. Therefore, to-day, as the result of movement created by the war, it is obviously very much worse.
Putting the matter in another form, paragraph 118 states:
If all the constituency electorates in excess, on the one hand, and in defect, on the other, in 1939, are separately aggregated, the former aggregate, that is, those in excess, will be found to return nine Members of Parliament per million electors, whereas the latter aggregate will be found to return 30 Members of Parliament per million electors.
That was the position in 1939 and it is worse to-day, and I confidently assert that, if we were to hold the first post-war election without in some way dealing with the question of redistribution, the Parliament which would be elected would not be truly representative of the people of this country.
I should like to say a word on Proportional Representation. I should think that there are few Members in this House who have had the practical experience of Proportional Representation which I have had myself, because I was for eight years a Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland at its original inception, when its members were elected under the system of Proportional Representation, I myself underwent two Parliamentary elections under the system of Proportional Representation and I doubt if there is any other Member in this House to whom that can apply.

Sir Alfred Beit: Is that system still in use?

Sir H. O'Neill: No, under the Act which set up the Parliament, it was prescribed that, I think after a period of five years, the subordinate Parliament had the right to do away with it, and the Parliament of Northern Ireland did do away with


it, but the first two elections there were held under Proportional Representation. As a result of my experience, I am definitely against Proportional Representation for General Elections in this country, and I will summarise my conclusions against it as follows. First, I will concede to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) that the system does work. From the machinery point of view, it works perfectly well. We found that there were hardly any spoilt papers, although, instead of putting a cross, voters had to put the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 right down the list of candidates. The count is very long and complicated, but it is not difficult, and I, myself, was once in the curious position of having to act as returning officer in an election under Proportional Representation of 13 people by an electorate of 52. That was the election of half of the members of the Senate of Northern Ireland by the whole of the members of the House of Commons. Even that, under Proportional Representation, worked quite well. We got some of the officials of the Proportional Representation Society to give their help and assistance, and it was carried through by a mathematical method of multiplying each vote by 1000. In that way it worked well. We were able under Proportional Representation to elect the 13 members by a constituency numbering only 52. The test worked as regards machinery.
But the whole object of Proportional Representation is the representation of minorities, who may get the quota over a large area but not be able to secure a member in constituencies of about the present size. If you carried out the system absolutely logically, the whole country would be one constituency. That is the logical result of Proportional Representation; in any case you have to have very large constituencies. A constituency with less than five members running jointly can possibly work, and it is much better to have six, seven or eight and even up to 10. If in this country we were to have constituencies returning eight Members jointly, it would mean, on the basis of a quota of 70,000 electors, which is the present basis of this House—a constituency of 560,000 electors. The individual Member would absolutely and completely lose touch with his constituents. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for

East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that personal contact between the Member and his constituency is one of the foundations of our democratic system. Under Proportional Representation, with the vast constituencies in this country, there would be 500,000 electors and possibly more, and the personal touch between the Member and his constituency must absolutely vanish, and that would be a bad thing for the country.
Lastly, my objection to the system is that it does not suit the British characteristics. Our main idea of democratic government is a government and an opposition; one party in power and the other in opposition—two parties in the main.

Mr. W. J. Brown: And a few Independents.

Sir H. O'Neill: Certainly, they add interest to our proceedings, but in the main you must have two parties. The very shape of this Chamber shows that that is our system. If Proportional Representation were to work properly Sand to secure its object of giving representation to small minorities, it must mean, in the long run, that you would cease to have two parties in this House. You would have a number of groups coalescing for one purpose, hostile to each other for another and, in my view, that would sound the deathknell of the democratic system as we have known it grow and flourish successfully in this country over such a long period of years.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not for me to defend the Government in this matter, but the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) was, I think, a little hard on it when he said that there had been some laxity on its part in bringing forward this Motion. He perhaps has forgotten that this time the matter is very much more complicated than it was at the end of the last war, and that, in fact, the Government did bring forward the Electoral Registration Regulations, which are very complicated and must have given the Home Office a great deal of work to compile. I am very glad that at last we are going to set up this Conference under your Chairmanship and guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with previous Members when they said that the Conference was likely to be an extremely important one. Obviously, it


should lead to fairly definite and clear results. If, as we now know, we are to have a permanent Commission set up for redistribution purposes, it will very likely be a long time ahead before we have an opportunity to consider electoral reform again because it seems in the past to have gone hand in hand with the redistribution of seats. Therefore what is done now as a result of Mr. Speaker's Conference will, I take it, last for a long time. I agree whole-heartedly with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking). The suggestion he made, that the poll card should be an official issue was an excellent one and I hope that the. Committee over which you are going to preside, Mr. Speaker, will give very careful consideration to it and, I personally hope, adopt it. It will be a step in the right direction.

Mr. Buchanan: Does the hon. Member mean the issuing of poll cards to the electorate before the voting takes place?

Mr. Hall: I cannot speak of what the Committee may recommend but as I understood the right hon. Member it was that, instead of each party sending out a poll card of its own, with its own candidate's name in very bold letters on it, the returning officer, or some machinery set up under him, would be responsible for sending out a poll card to every elector, with his number stamped on it and the names of all candidates for that particular division in print of equal size.

Mr. Buchanan: I remember an experiment in Glasgow in 1920 when every member of the town council had to retire and there was a local veto election and they had poll cards. I would not like to see the same sort of thing done throughout the country. There was almost a traffic in them at the time.

Mr. Hall: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has had that experience and no doubt he will be able, if he wishes, to put it in debate, but for my part, when, the right hon. Member for Chorley put forward the idea, it appeared to me to be a good one and I certainly hope that the Committee about to be set up will go into it and see whether the suggestion is a practicable one. One suggestion which the right hon. Member for Chorley did not make, but which is a

reform which might also lead to economy, would be some sort of prohibition on the expenditure by Members of Parliament to the Association which supports them in their division. If this could be put into effect it would help considerably the party opposite, who, by newspaper accounts, cannot get adopted for anything like a decent seat unless they spend up to£1,000 a year on the local machine. Whether that is true or not, I do not know.
The Debate during these two days will, it seems certain, range very largely round the question of Proportional Representation. The question of Proportional Representation rouses very strong feeling. It is amazing how deeply some people feel on this particular matter. For my part I realise that the suggestion is a very attractive one from the point of view of exact justice. If you want exact representation as far as you can get it in this House, then obviously some form of Proportional Representation would be ideal. It seems plain, however, that this is impossible and that the arguments against it are overwhelming and that it would be afterwards regretted if we adopted the proposal.
I do not want to traverse the arguments already made by previous speakers, but to me one argument stands out as a good one and has not yet been put in this Debate. That is, that the expense to individual candidates under Proportional Representation, supposing they have not got some sort of group or machine behind them, would be considerable, and would certainly help to prevent independent Members from returning to this House. It is axiomatic that if we had, as we should have to have under Proportional Representation, much larger constituencies than we have now, it would mean a far greater expense to candidates and would thus give a great advantage to the larger parties who not only would have the machinery, but also the money to make their candidates known over the very much larger areas which would be brought into existence. One of the great needs of this House is to get younger men into it, and I am hoping that when the next General Election does come, younger men and women will not only fight but will be enabled to fight by the two or three great parties now existing, and it will be much better for them if they are able to stand in constituencies which are of the size that we know at present.
Redistribution is a very great problem. I was a member, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir Hugh O'Neill), of the Committee set up to deal with this subject and, as he said, we sat for the best part of a year, and the results of our labours are contained in this document in my hand. I would like to say in parenthesis how much I share the remarks of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs when he spoke of the debt we owe to the Registrar-General for his work as chairman of that Committee. If I may, I would like to add the names of Mr. Victor Derrick and Mr. Kenneth Macassey, who acted as secretaries of that Committee and who also helped members of it both to understand the problems they had to face and the documents and figures which they had to have for their deliberations. The members of the Committee were anxious not to be too controversial, but there are, as Members will have seen, one or two minority reports, and one of those minority reports deals with the question of redistribution. This reservation is not against redistribution as such, or as to its desirability, but only as to the time when it should come.
There was however a feeling by some Members that in spite of the difficulties full redistribution should take place. I do not know whether the Government have accepted that view but it appears from the terms of the Motion that they have. I think, on the whole, that would be a pity because it will take many years for the population to resettle itself, and as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said, constituencies are something more than just geographical areas. People get used to Members, they get used to the name of their constituency. I was rather surprised to find in my own division among people who one imagined were not too politically conscious, that the name of the Division meant a great deal to them, and when they heard there was a possible redistribution some of them said to me: "Does that mean that our constituency will disappear, that the name of it will go?" They want to stick to it. I think that is all to the good, and if we can, we want to preserve this feeling. It occurred to me, and I think it has been mentioned before by earlier speakers, that one way out of the present very real dilemma would be to increase temporarily the number of Members of this House in order to help districts like Uxbridge,

Harrow, Hendon and Ilford. Those constituencies are at the moment represented by one Member each but should be represented by a much larger number. That would mean that the carving up of other areas—which might only be temporary if it is done immediately after the war—can be postponed until it is seen how the population resettles itself.
I would like to make one observation on the question of double-Member constituencies. If there were any physical reason why some constituencies should be run as double-Member constituencies, I would be able to understand why they continue to exist, but I have gone down the list and I cannot see any among them that it would be impossible to divide up into two single-Member constituencies. I had the misfortune once to fight one in the years that have gone, and the permutations of voting indulged in by the electors almost passed belief. It is perfectly obvious that very many electors in a double-Member constituency disfranchise themselves by voting for one candidate perhaps of the Left, and another candidate of the Right. In my own case a substantial number voted for me as a Socialist and also for a candidate on the other side who was deadly opposed to all I stood for. That either shows muddle-headedness on the part of the electors, or else it indicates that they have been put in a dilemma into which they should not have been led. I do hope, therefore, that the Committee which is to be set up will look into this and find ways and means of getting rid of double-Membered constituencies.
On the question of expenses, if we are to help younger people into the House, we must realise that it should be our object to make the fighting of elections as cheap as possible. I would, therefore, like to see a reduction in the amount per head which is allowable, and something done about the use of motor cars. To-day, there are very few candidates who would not agree that there is a lot to be said for the abolition of motor cars at election times except for invalids. Those of us who fight elections have to ask our friends at election times to lend us their cars. We know very well that they do not want to do it, because the cars get damaged, and that, more often than not, our opponents as well as our friends ride in our cars. The time has come when the whole


thing should be overhauled and the use of cars shoud be made illegal except for invalids. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the setting up of this Conference and I am sure that under your guidance and wise Chairmanship it will produce good results and in the years to come we shall, I hope, get democracy working better than it has in the past.

Major Lloyd: My time is short, and the speeches until recently have been, on the whole, very long. Since we have been discussing this question of redistribution I have been sitting here, like others, hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and wishing for a redistribution of time allotted to the speakers in this House so that we could equalise the time more than we have been able to do to-day. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply in a few minutes to the speeches which have been made to-day and I have a feeling that he would like to have a speech by another Member for a Scottish constituency in addition to the excellent one we had from my hon. Friend the Member for East. Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). That is why I have endeavoured to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that my right hon. Friend might have the opportunity of making at least a few comments on the speeches of two representatives from Scotland, as well as on those made by other Members.
Scotland, of course, is primarily concerned with the effect upon the proportional number of Members of Parliament she will have as a result of a far reaching or partial measure of redistribution compared with the existing state of affairs and compared with the number of English Members of Parliament. That is our prime consideration and in the few minutes at my disposal I shall attempt to concentrate upon that and leave unsaid, regretfully, many of the things I should have liked to have said upon the general issues which will be discussed at the Conference. I wish the Conference well. Scotland would like to be represented on it and would like to feel that her voice was adequately represented and heard in the important discussions which will take place. Scotland's position must not be worsened from the present situation. If the main criterion for redistribution, or the sole criterion, is to be

a matter of population, then, mathematically, it seems certain that the Scottish position vis a vis, the status quo, as vis a vis that of England, will be materially worsened. That must not be, because in the locust years, the years between the two wars, the population in Scotland very materially decreased and it was not due to the fault of the Scottish people. It is due partly to the fact that there has been a constant tendency throughout those years for industry and commerce to drift from Scotland to the south.

Sir A. Beit: My hon. and gallant Friend seems to be implying that the representation of the persons who at any rate get in in England would not be as good as that which they would get in Scotland.

Major Lloyd: I am not prepared to enter into a dispute about the merits of that; I was not attempting to imply anything of the kind. I was merely implying that the number of Members in Scotland will be proportionately less than the number of members for England. Figures which have been given to me give 22 additional Members for English constituencies and deduct 12 from the existing number of Scottish Members. That will not do and I want to make my protest against any suggestion that redistribution shall be calculated purely on the mathematical basis of population.
Other factors must be taken into consideration; the whole basis must be weighted by other considerations. I do not want a points system or anything of that kind but such factors as county areas, community centres, local traditions, esprit de corps and territorial considerations arc, for Scotland, essential. We in Scotland hope and believe that our English and Welsh colleagues will agree that Scottish tradition, history, pride and the spirit of the Union—which Scotland has endeavoured to hold as long as possible, although there is a strong Scottish Nationalist feeling—should be maintained by this Conference. We would urge that nothing whatever shall be done which will put Scotland into a more unhappy and inferior position than she is in to-day. Considering Scotland's national history, pride and traditions, I believe that her membership is small enough for the great part she is playing in the United Kingdom. At least it must not be smaller than it is at present.


As I have said, all kinds of factors should be taken into consideration as well as the question of mere arithmetical population.
I would like to refer to the question of assimilation of municipal and Parliamentary boundaries. My own constituency of East Renfrewshire is deeply affected by this; it is the largest constituency in Scotland and has the only abnormal number of electors which it might be considered essential should be redistributed. I am more than willing that this should be so, although I should be sorry to lose a large number of my constituents. The Glasgow boundaries come right into my constituency and if I were to be asked, under redistribution, to hand over my Parliamentary constituents who are situated within the municipal boundaries of Glasgow, that would be fair. The boundaries of the constituencies adjoining Glasgow will, I hope, be rectified by this Conference. On the question of election expenses, I want to see younger and poorer men coming into the House of Commons without let or hindrance. Money must not stand in their way and I most earnestly hope that this consideration will be a vital factor in the minds of those who take part in this Conference. It was bad enough in the days before the war but so few will have any money at all when the war is over that if we want young men, now serving in the Forces, to come and help us, we must make it as easy for them, financially, as we possibly can. I ask my right hon. Friend to give me and other Scottish Members and the Scottish public, who will be indirectly listening to him, some assurance that he will use all his influence to get Scottish unity on this question and press whenever he possibly can for a square deal for Scotland. I confidently appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who come from England and Wales to see that Scotland gets neither more nor less than fair play.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I would like first of all to pay a well-deserved tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the lucid and comprehensive way in which he stated the case for us all to-day. After he had finished I thought there was very little left to be said. The main purpose of the discussion is to propose a Speaker's Conference and after it has reported to the House would be the appropriate occasion

for whatever recommendations they make to be debated, but, as matters have progressed, it has become obvious that the great bulk of the speakers are interested mostly for and against Proportional Representation. I am not going to say anything about my own personal views on the matter except that in Scotland we have had some experience of it as Northern Ireland has had. We had it for educational authorities between 1919 and 1929 and our experience was such that there was no body of opinion at the reorganisation in 1929 which advocated its continuance. It is equally true that prior to Proportional Representation we had an even worse expedient called the cumulative vote under which not only was protection given to minorities but the system was so organised that there were pretty nearly nothing else but minorities that got there. But whatever experience we have had will, pro and con—there are arguments for it too—be placed at the disposal of the Conference should the Conference desire it, and when it decides to make a recommendation to Parliament we shall all be free to express our views and vote as seems good to us.
But there is far more than Proportional Representation that is interesting Scotland in this matter. There is a very considerable body of opinion which is most apprehensive that, if there should be any re-allocation of seats on an arithmetical or mathematical basis, it will be manifestly to the detriment of Scotland. We have had a rough time of it economically for the past 15 or 20 years. We have seen industries drifting South, and the population drifting South after them. We were getting apprehensive about what might be the future of our country if the process were to be allowed to develop and we are anxious that consideration should be given not only to the arithmetical and mathematical possibilities but that other factors should be equally considered. I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that there were such questions as sparsity of population which must be considered, as indeed they have always been considered in previous redistributions of seats. At the time of the union of the Parliaments—it is sometimes forgotten that we are here by Treaty rights—we had reserved to us a proportion of the Members of the House. In 1707 we had 45 Members. That was


when we had a population of just over a million. It is now well over 4,500,000 and we have 74 Members, including University Members. At each of the redistributions that have taken place—1832, 1867, 1885 and 1918—consideration was given to the fact that there were areas in Scotland which could not be divided on a purely arithmetical or mathematical basis. It would really be impossible to add Argyllshire to, say, Ross and Cromarty or Inverness for the purpose of elections. In Argyllshire there are now no fewer than 100 polling districts, with 76 separate polling stations, and there are 10 islands. How could a constituency like that be added? There are other constituencies in a similar plight. We simply must, and I expect will, as in times past, take cognisance of the question of sparsity of population.
The apprehension, however, that exists in Scotland is about this precise arithmetical division. If we take for Parliamentary electorates a quota obtained by dividing the total electorate by the number of Members and allow a margin of 30 per cent. below and 70 per cent. above this datum line, there would be 17 seats below quota; the loss of 17 seats out of 74 would be a staggering blow. Further, the types of seats that we should lose would be almost equally divided. We should lose Bridgeton on that basis, which would be a very considerable loss. We should lose Kincardine and Western, Banffshire, Caithness and Sutherland, represented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, Ross and Cromarty, the Western Isles, Moray and Nairn, Orkney and Shetland, Montrose Burghs, Edinburgh Central, Glasgow (Tradeston), Hamilton, Midlothian and Peebles, West Perth and, last and possibly least, you would lose myself.

Mr. Buchanan: Thank God you have left Gorbals.

Mr. Johnston: Gorbals would be above the datum line. These are matters, however, which will be considered by the Speaker's Conference, which, no doubt, as in the past, will endeavour to be reasonable and fair and when their recommendations come before the House will be the time for all interested parties to express their views. I cannot see how we should advance any cause whatever by expressing

in advance of the Speaker's Conference our determination to abide by one datum line only. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) asked a question about the kind of Parliamentary control which it would be possible to have if successive redistributions of seats should be decided upon by the Conference. There again I suggest that that is a matter which the Conference itself must analyse and make recommendations upon. It will be time enough for Parliament thereafter to see how it can retain control without at the same time requiring separate Bills to be brought forward every now and again.
This Debate has shown no diversity of opinion on the necessity for the Conference. Everybody agrees about that. Everybody agrees that there are vast anomalies in our electoral system and that the war has added to those anomalies. There are migrations of population to and fro. There are great industrial changes. It is imperative, therefore, that Parliament should now and again revise its electoral arrangements so that within the bounds of reason equal votes will have equal values. Seeing that everybody is agreed upon the necessity for a Conference, and as nobody has suggested any better method than a Conference presided over by Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Government, subject of course to what is said when the Debate is resumed, have every reason to welcome the response which has been given to this proposal. They hope that the Conference will be as fair, as just and as reasonable as conferences have been in the past and that this Parliamentary system, which works by trial and error, which works sometimes without very rigid rules, but still works, will continue to function.

Mr. David Grenfell: The right hon. Gentleman has helped the House very much with the short speech he has delivered. He has spoken with that pride of country which is so marked a characteristic of his and which we acknowledge so fully in this House. He did something that helped me to see this problem. Urgent though it may be in some parts of the country, the urgency is on the side of restraint and caution. It affects other parts of the country too. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the losses which the House would experience if something in the way of exact arithmetical redistribution


were made. I am concerned about the situation in the small country to which I belong. London is as large as Scotland and Wales put together numerically, but we are not the less important because we have a small population. In the redistribution scheme of 1917 we were allotted 35 county and borough divisions and one Member to represent the universities of Wales. I am not sure that if the quota suggested by the Secretary of State were applied, allowing for a margin downwards of 30 per cent. and a margin above the datum of 70 per cent., we would not possibly lose one or two Divisions. The Divisions which are in peril by such a redistribution are highly important. We dare not take away the representation of a Division that has existed for 50 or 60 years.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

CHIMNEY-SWEEPS, GRANTHAM (MILITARY SERVICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Kendall: I first raised the question of chimney-sweeps because of the numerous letters of complaints I was getting from my constituents. I subsequently had an appeal from an old gentleman asking whether his son, a skilled chimney-sweep, could be got out of the Army on deferment. I appealed to the War Office, who told me they would give sympathetic consideration to an appeal, if it were supported by some responsible Minister. At the suggestion of the War Office, I wrote numerous letters to the Ministry of Health, which I thought was the proper authority. The Ministry of Health refused to accept that responsibility. I wrote to the Minister of Home Security and he said that it was not the job of his Ministry to take that responsibility, except so far as it concerned the possible outbreak of fire. After further correspondence, the Ministry of Home Security wrote me that they had considered the whole position in relation to other Ministries, and were now prepared to be the sponsoring Ministry. I subsequently got another letter stating that they could not

recommend the release of this young man from the Army, because there were already nine chimney-sweeps in Grantham, four full-time and five part-time.
When I got that letter, I started to investigate the statement by going around and checking up, first of all on the four skilled chimney-sweeps. I thought I should probably find vigorous, skilled men, doing a first-class job of work in this very old town. What did I find? The first man named in the list of the Ministry of Home Security was an old gentleman of 78 years of age. I thought that the next would be a bit younger and have a lot of work to put in, in an old town like Grantham, where chimneys are all sorts of shapes. I found that he was 60 years of age and still doing a bit of a job as a chimney-sweep. He was probably old enough to be a candidate for a by-election. The next one I checked up on was another elderly gentleman, of 75 years of age. Those were three of the full-time chimney-sweeps. The last was another elderly gentleman of 60 years of age with acute rheumatoid arthritis. He was doing his best, but it was not a very big best for a town with 6,000 houses with approximately 24,000 chimneys.
The next check-up was on the five part-time chimney-sweeps. One of them works a few hours at night time, when he happens to be on day shifts, which takes place only every two weeks. He is averaging about two chimneys a day. This man works in the factory. There is another man who calls himself a full time Jehovah's Witness. He claims to be doing about four chimneys a day. Then there is another man who is a full time maltster. He is doing two or three chimneys a day. Then there is another one who is a full time stoker at the local gas works and he does a few chimneys occasionally. I think he is the one who told me—I have no notes with me so I speak from memory—that between his job and chimney sweeping the whole thing was just killing him and he would have to quit anyway. The last one is a full time employee of the L.N.E.R. They are the total chimney sweeps to take care of Grantham and district, not only the houses, but hospitals and the very many schools. I checked with the local N.F.S. I thought it only right and proper to do so in presenting this case, to see whether there had been more outbreaks of fire in


the last 12 months than had previously occurred. They told me there had not been more outbreaks of fire in the last 12 months in comparison with the previous corresponding period. Strangely enough in the last two or three weeks there have been one or two fires directly due to unswept chimneys.
The young man for whom I am appealing is a very young man, it is true. He is fully skilled and is batman to an officer in the Army. I feel we have a really good case to try and get into Grantham one skilled chimney sweep, because out of all these full-timers and part-timers I have mentioned, there is only one who is a fully skilled chimney sweep. That is the old man of 60 who suffers from acute rheumatoid arthritis. There is one thing which I am very happy to say has come out of the long correspondence I have had with the various Ministries. That is that at last the chimney sweeps of this country have a sponsoring Minister now, the Minister of Home Security. In appealing to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to give his very sympathetic consideration to the case of getting this young man out of the Army it is because I feel, quite logically I believe, that fire prevention, or as far as we can go in getting an additional skilled man into the town who could do probably 60 to 80 chimneys a week, is doing a service of more national importance than cleaning the buttons and shoes of the officer under whom he serves. This young chap has had a very good and quite long war record. He went through Narvik, he went through Dunkirk—still presumably polishing the buttons. I believe he is now back in this country so there should be no trouble about getting him home.
I suggest very strongly to the Minister that he should sponsor at least getting this young man out of the Army on deferment until we see what other methods can be taken, or whether or not from another part of England we can get skilled chimney sweeps older, but not quite as old as some of those we have at the present time. We are all grateful to these part-timers and these old men who are doing their darnedest to give us a helping hand in a situation which might be grave for a very old town like Grantham. I wish to take this opportunity of thanking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the

Ministry of Labour for coming along for this Adjournment when I only gave him 15 minutes notice.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) had such bad luck the other night, after having sat until a very late hour in order to get in on the Adjournment on the subject of chimney sweeps, that I am very glad that he has been able to raise his point now, although it has caused me some embarrassment, because I sent my papers to the Department to have some inquiries made, and have not been able to get them back in time. Therefore, I apologise beforehand for the possibly sketchy reply I shall make to the hon. Member. The House will have been interested in his story of the grand old chimney sweeps of Grantham: aged 78, 76, and I forget the other ages. I have no corroborative evidence of their ages, but I have some evidence of how many chimneys they are supposed to be sweeping, and my information is that they are doing very well. I would like, for a moment, to explain why I am answering in this short Debate. First, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security is, unfortunately, laid up; otherwise she would have been here. [An HON. MEMBER: "She was here to-day."] Well, she was laid up the other day, when this matter was to have been raised, and as this was as much the concern of the Ministry of Labour as that of the Ministry of Home Security, and, as the hon. Lady was laid up I agreed to take it.
There seem to be two points. The first is the general responsibility for fires and fire prevention. In all that, as the hon. Member mentioned, the Ministry of Home Security have agreed to act as the sponsoring Department for the deferment and release of chimney sweeps. But I would like to explain further, because a good many Members of Parliament write to me on this subject, the machinery for the release of men from the Forces. I know it has been mentioned before, and I apologise to those Members who already know about it. The Service Departments insist that all applications for release from the Forces on grounds of national interest must be sponsored by the Government Department concerned with the activities or businesses of the firms which employ


the men. In this case, the Ministry of Home Security have agreed to sponsor these people. If the sponsoring Department are satisfied that release would be justified, from their point of view, in the national interest they then make application in the normal manner, and the case is referred to the Ministry of Labour and National Service. If we are not completely satisfied immediately that the release is justified, we refer it to our appropriate machinery in the region—usually the local man-power board—for investigation and report, having regard to the local circumstances, the supply of that particular class of labour, and whether the release of the individual Service man is desirable. Then we make a recommendation to the Service Department concerned. It is for that Department, as it must be, to make the final decision on whether the soldier, sailor or airman is released.
In this case, the Ministry of Home Security asked us to look into the case of this young man. According to information supplied by the hon. Member for Grantham, the man is something like 23 years of age, an active young man in His Majesty's Forces, well trained—he has been in since the beginning of the war—and, prima-facie, very much needed by the Army at the present time. Therefore, it would have to be an overwhelmingly strong case of national importance before the release of that man could be requested from the Forces.
We, therefore, made a detailed investigation of the situation in Grantham, and I give the House the information that was provided for me. There are four full-time and five part-time chimney sweeps known to be operating at the present time. We have endeavoured to make an estimate of the importance of the Smiths' business to the area by reference to the amount of work done by him and through other chimney sweeps included in the scope of the inquiry, and, with the information with which I am provided from our local people, it appears that approximately 250 chimneys are being swept weekly, of which about one-fifth are done by the father of the young man concerned—the gentleman suffering from this chronic ill-health. We are informed that there is no evidence of hardship in the area caused by this shortage of chimney sweeps. In

fact, two of the full-time chimney sweeps have told us they could do more work if they could get it. We did look, where we could and where they were willing to show them to us, at the appointment books, where they are kept, and it appears that orders have to be booked about one week in advance. There does not seem to be any indication of unreasonable delay in carrying out the work, though it is not possible to do the chimney sweeping in the early morning, as most housewives prefer and as used to be the case in peace-time. It is interesting to note, though it is not a complete indication of the position in Grantham, that one of the chimney sweeps was spending his own money advertising as recently as last month in the local Grantham paper, for more customers. He may, of course, have been endeavouring to build up good will for the future.
My information, therefore, does not entirely coincide with the information of the hon. Member for Grantham, and, as he is the Member for the place in question, with his local first-hand opportunities of getting information, I do not think I should turn down out of hand the points he raises, and therefore I am proposing—and indeed, after he had written to me and he missed the Adjournment the other night, I had already put in train—a further investigation to check up the facts supplied to us as against the points raised by the hon. Member, and I will certainly look into the question when a further report reaches me. But, even so, it is a very big request to make to the Army that they should release a fit young man of 23 years who has been in the Army four years and is fully trained, and it may well be that other steps would have to be taken, if the shortage is proved, to relieve the situation so far as may be.
There is a final word I would like to say as a general observation. The Minister of Home Security tells me that just recently—and it accords with the information which the hon. Member for Grantham has given us—the numbers of chimney fires have tended to rise, although there is no alarming increase. Nevertheless, it does appear that there has been a tendency in the last month or so for the number of fires to rise and the Minister asks me to say that he is watching the point, and he will consider, whenever there is any definite proof, what action


should be taken in the national interest. I assure the House and the hon. Member that we at the Ministry of Labour will keep such points under consideration, because it is obviously desirable that these fires should be stopped, although I understand that the bulk of chimney fires do not in fact, cause fires of any magnitude or danger.

Mr. Driberg: Did the hon. Gentleman actually check up with the War Office on the nature of the duties on which the man is engaged in the Army, as alleged by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), and, as a general principle, is it possible for the Ministry of Labour to ask that question of a Service Department?

Mr. McCorquodale: No, Sir. The hon. Member has got the position a little out of perspective. We represent to the War Office or the Admiralty, or the Air Force, if a sponsoring Department passes it on to us, and we have checked it up, as to whether we think the national interest requires, if possible, the man to be released. It comes up before the release committee, which happens to sit in my Department, and upon which the Service Departments are represented, and at that release committee the decision is taken one way or the other, the Service Department having always the right of veto. The nature of the employment in the Forces of a man is entirely a matter for the Forces, and they might veto our proposal on the respective value of the man to them or might say, "We will let you have that man more easily because he is really of less advantage to us." With regard to the man being a batman, I do not know the particular case at all, but, in general, where infantry officers go into the front line and into battle I have always understood that their batmen play a vital part in going in with them and in communications and messages. It is not correct to consider a batman as not being a fighting unit.

Mr. Granville: We have all had cases of this sort and I am glad that my hon. Friend has dealt with them in a general way. But what happens if the Ministry of Labour say, "This man is vitally needed for safety and security against fire in the town of Grantham" and the report goes to the War Office or

the Army authority and they say, "Yes, but we think that he is doing what we consider to be an important job in the Army." What happens in a case of that kind? Who comes in as referee, or whose decision is final?

Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Member puts a hypothetical case and hypothetical cases are always difficult to answer. As far as I know, the position which he envisages has not yet arisen. The release committee which sits in the Department has always come to a conclusion one way or another, either to release the man or not, without any reference further. It all works smoothly.

Mr. Granville: Can my hon. Friend say whether that recommendation was made in this case? If the Ministry of Labour, say that a man is very important, does this case go forward?

Mr. McCorquodale: It goes to the release committee, and if the release committee, on which the Services are represented as well as the Department, agree, and they have the information as to the use of the man for the Forces, which we have not considered up to then, and if the release committee consider that the man should be released temporarily or permanently, he gets release.

Mr. W. J. Brown: We shall all sympathise with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his reply, because it is obvious he has not had anything but a very brief reference, and I am not at all disposed to take what he has said as a final reply to the representations made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall). I would point out to the hon. Member that he under-stated his case. Not only are fires increasing in chimneys in Grantham in a general way, but his chimney was on fire last night, and this, Sir, is a matter of grave concern to me, because I enjoy the hospitality of the hon. Member for Grantham, and anything that interferes with the continuance and adequacy of that hospitality would obviously be a matter of great concern to me. However, it must be admitted that the hon. Member for Grantham has made a pretty strong case.

Mr. McCorquodale: May I interrupt? Last night was particularly mild, and I rather regret there was a fire burning in


the house of the hon. Member for Grantham at all owing to the shortage of fuel.

Mr. Brown: But the hon. Member for Grantham has spent a great deal of his time in America, where heating systems are adequate, and obviously needs more coal than those of us who have been brought up on this island and inured to hardship from our earliest days. But my hon. Friend makes a strong case that he is left with the cohorts of the aged to sweep the chimneys of Grantham. He begs for the release of one young man, only one. He is like the prophet in the Old Testament, he demands only one righteous man, and he begs the Minister to release this young man. What is the answer? The answer is that this young man is 23. That is a misfortune we have all passed through in our time, but the gravamen of this matter is not the man's age but what he is doing. Is it the case that this boy is polishing buttons? If so, I submit that he is better employed in polishing chimneys. We have had no answer on that point at all, and, moreover, it appears there will be no answer, because the Ministry of Labour, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said to-night, accepts the view of the Service Departments as to whether a man should be released or not. The view of a Service Department is well known: "Having got 'em, don't let 'em go; what we have we hold." If the Minister of Labour accepts what the Service Department says as the

last word, there is no hope of the release of this young man from his ignominious and laborious task of polishing buttons. I think the Minister must go further.
I know in my own experience of literally thousands of men in the Armed Forces of this country who are doing work which could just as well be done by civilian labour, and whenever I have had the opportunity in this House of pointing that out, on the Air Estimates, the Army Estimates and so on, I have never held back. I tell the hon. Gentleman, and I tell the Government, that you can get a couple of divisions of men from out of the Army put into civilian life, doing much more valuable work than they are doing at the moment, and that you can save the Exchequer literally millions upon millions of pounds a year. I am not disposed to dismiss this case on the argument that this young man is only 23. I would like to know what he is doing. It is the Minister of Labour who, after all, rounds us up, and, if he rounds us up he ought to accept the responsibility of seeing that we are properly employed, and a mere ipse dixit on the part of the War Office is not adequate to explain that. Therefore, I hope he will go further into this matter, so that he will either release this young man or take such other steps as will put the matter right; and, above all, see to it that nothing whatever is allowed to interfere with the magnificent: hospitality that I receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.